Hi Elad, Will take a look at it and let you know! Thanks, Howard
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 6:35 AM Elad Kalif <elad...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi Howard, > Have you made progress with addressing the comments? > I think once points are addressed we can maybe start a vote? > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 12:39 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > >> > 1. I would assume the path for StatsD (dogstatsd) would be for >> deprecation - we will perhaps comment or mark it as deprecation - and >> should follow the established (or usual?) process of feature deprecation of >> Airflow, once the opentelemetry is in place. >> >> Yep. Deprecation should be. And maybe accompanied with a "statsd >> open-telemetry exporter" ? I think eventually we should have just OTEL >> stats and nothing else. The current "configurable" metrics class >> should be fully replaced with "OTEL configurable" metrics. Same as >> (but that's a much longer and uncertain path) logging configuration >> should get replaced if/when OTEL logging lives to its promises. >> >> > 2. Airflow will provide its own list of 'instrumented metrics' out of >> the box - with the list specified in its documentation so that users would >> be aware of them. However, with opentelemetry, the users will also have the >> ability to add their 'custom' metrics / traces / logs to be collected via >> opentelemetry as needed. That option and how-to's should also be documented. >> >> Good point. Actually the nice thing is that adding new metrics could >> then be done as part of task execution for example - so we should >> indeed have some libraries/tools or maybe even operator's /task >> interface should have some built-in capabilities and allow for >> declarative ways of adding metrics (but this can be added as a >> follow-up - it does not need to be described and hashed out yet IMHO - >> but we can add it to the docs as "future improvement") . >> >> > 3. A little clarification - I believe there were two POC's - which at >> the time during the first POC, it had lacked some of the features (e.g. >> traces and logs). However, in the second POC, there is a stable release of >> Traces, and beta release of logs, so things have been progressing. >> Opentelemetry is highly evolving and many things do change and get added >> relatively quickly. During my second POC (the one mentioned in the attached >> PDF) I was able to validate that all of the 'key' features that we needed >> to implement opentelemetry for airflow has been released and available. >> >> Yeah. I concur with that Howard wrote. What was there a few months >> ago a little "shaky", becomes more and more solid as time passes. And >> I also spoke with a few people who are involved in OpenTelemetry >> standard and development (one of my friends is site-lead for Sumo >> Logic Poland and they take active part in that effort and I just spoke >> to him about it). Also AWS is very much vested in it as far as I >> understand - I also spoke to Google and they are very much supporting >> OTEL as industry standard. I think there is a firm industry backing >> behind OTEL and there is no way it "won't progress" or "falter". This >> is a little bit of a "leap of faith" that it will become fully >> featured for our needs, but I think what is already there is "enough" >> to justify the move and anything that comes out of Beta is a bonus. >> Eventually if things will not go fast enough for us - we can also >> actually contribute there on the "collection" level. It will likely >> have a much better outcome than if we try to integrate airflow with >> multiple services ourselves - we will just have to make sure things >> get collected "well" - and then all the different services will more >> likely than not write exporters for it. >> >> > 4. This is a debatable topic - and I believe those may not be a part of >> the core airflow code base, but would suggest perhaps we could create a >> 'contribution' repo which may maintain those third party assets (e.g. >> Grafana dashboard, Datadog dashboard, etc.) that users may use and even >> participate in maintaining it. >> >> Yeah. I think this is also an opportunity for someone who is >> specializing in those or even let Grafana add it to their "portfolio". >> I can imagine there might be some basic dashboards generated by >> companies which do some kinds of integrations (and with an option of >> "come to us when you want more customizability". While we won't be >> able to endorse those, we can easily let it land in the "ecosystem" >> page of ours. I think also we can easily reach out (for example to >> Grafana to do it - in the case of Grafana, Myrle Krantz, ex Treasurer >> from ASF who I know well is a Senior Manager in Grafana responsible >> for Cloud team). >> >> >> > 5. POC may not have all the changes, as the work was to 'prototype' and >> answer questions like 'what if' when opentelemetry is in place. The >> proposal actually has link to a GIT repo that contains the changes that >> were done during the POC: >> https://github.com/howardyoo/airflow/tree/opentelemetry-poc-1 . Since >> the details of the changes would make the existing PDF even more subjected >> to TL;DR, I linked this git branch for anyone interested in the changes to >> take a look. I hope this would be sufficient. >> >> I think Elad is right that some more details need to "surface" from >> the POC to AIP. While the changes are very little - they don't change >> any flows or logic in Airflow, it's more to "selectively" add >> collections and make sure common "Span" id is shared throughout the >> code (which I think is the biggest change). >> I think Howard, it might make sense to extract parts of the POC and >> put them as an outline of changes to implement in the "AIP". >> >> The POC is more trace of what you've done, but I think simply >> translating this into "this is what we need to do" for those who will >> just read AIP is important. Our AIP's are much more "Technical" in >> nature than most of the >> >> > >> > 6. Yes, I agree - I will update the AIP proposal to make the scope more >> clearer. Thanks for the feedback! >> >> Yeah. Adding "future improvements" and especially "This is what we are >> not going to do and leave for later" is important part of every AIP. I >> think it's sometimes much more important to state what we are NOT >> going to vs. what we are going to do. >> >> > >> > Howard >> > >> > On Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 1:27 PM Elad Kalif <elad...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> Thanks Howard! >> >> Sorry for the delay, this was a long read. The PDF alone is 19 pages >> :) >> >> looks very good! >> >> >> >> I have 6 questions/points to raise: >> >> >> >> 1. I'm not clear about what is to happen with StatsD . >> >> It states "Make OpenTelemetry and StatsD optional and interchangeable." >> >> But do we want to support both in the long run? >> >> It doesn't specify if we are deprecating statsD along with completion >> of this AIP. >> >> >> >> 2. regarding adding metrics. >> >> Do we intend to let users define their own KPIs/metrics to be measured >> or it will be a closed list set by Airflow? >> >> >> >> 3. The POC specifies it uses a feature of open-telemetry (add metrics) >> which was not yet released. Do we know the timeline for the feature to be >> released? >> >> Can we vote on a plan to use something which is not yet publicly >> available? >> >> >> >> 4. Are the Grafana dashboards / other dashboards to be part of the >> Airflow core code base? >> >> I wonder if this should be in a dedicated repo? >> >> >> >> 5. Could you please clarify in the AIP page what changes are required >> to the Airflow code base? >> >> Some of them appear in the PDF but I'm not sure if that is all of them? >> >> >> >> 6. The PDF has several open questions/ideas. >> >> I think it would be best to add to the AIP a scope paragraph listing >> what will be included in the first phase and what is left for other phases. >> >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 4:26 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Or maybe that people are so stunned by the beauty and usefulness of it >> >>> that they cannot even say a word :) >> >>> >> >>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 11:37 PM Howard Yoo <howard...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> > >> >>> > I think it may mean all is well, perhaps :-) >> >>> > Howard >> >>> > >> >>> > On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 9:29 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Hello everyone, >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Would be great to get some comments and reviews - especially from >> >>> >> those who are users and are doing monitoring. Howard made a lot of >> >>> >> effort to show examples of how OTEL might help in this. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Otherwise, is the silence sign that all is good ? >> >>> >> >> >>> >> J. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 9:53 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > And let me add to it - we laid some foundations for it with >> Melodie >> >>> >> > Ezeani - the Outreachy intern where we did some internal >> integration >> >>> >> > work that let us understand the challenges and state of >> >>> >> > open-telemetry. >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > I am super excited about what open-telemetry can bring to >> Airflow - >> >>> >> > both short term (in metrics and instrumentation) and longer term >> - in >> >>> >> > logging when logging is mature enough. >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > The open-telemetry mov is at the heart of the principles we have >> - >> >>> >> > making Airflow "modern" but at the same time delegating what's >> not >> >>> >> > "core" to those who can do it better. Open Telemetry is precisely >> >>> >> > about that, >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > Howard particularly brought a great experience from using Open >> >>> >> > Telemetry before and making some good judgements and POC on the >> >>> >> > metrics produced by Airflow and how they can be useful from the >> >>> >> > "maintainer value" side. I looked at it from the technical >> integration >> >>> >> > POV - and Melodie helped to validate some of the assumptions and >> >>> >> > expose some of the technical challenges. >> >>> >> > The composite result is good, but we are looking with Howard on >> some >> >>> >> > insightful comments and critique - especially from the users of >> >>> >> > Airflow! >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > I look forward to more cool stuff on Airflow! >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > J. >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 9:39 PM Howard Yoo <howard...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > Hi all, >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > I am pleased to announce the start of the discussion for the >> new AIP draft that was recently been published: >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-49+OpenTelemetry+Support+for+Apache+Airflow >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > Jarek Potuik and I have been discussing about this proposal >> since early this year. During that time, we worked together on drafting >> this proposal, as well as doing another round of mini-POC to refresh and >> test on feasibility of OpenTelemetry on Apache Airflow. >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > As the POC was successful in terms of testing the >> OpenTelemetry on Airflow, we would like to expand the discussion to a wider >> user community here this mailing list to gather more consensus, comments, >> and feedbacks regarding this AIP. >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > Sincerely, >> >>> >> > > Howard and Jarek >> >
