Got it. Will describe the changes that might be subjected to be done - however, please note that the changes were the things that I did on my own during the POC, so the final changes may obviously be different.
On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 3:57 AM Elad Kalif <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd prefer that the Code Changes section would be more detailed. This is a > very important part. > I'm not sure referring to a private repo is the way to do it but even if > you should at least list the components which are subject to changes. > You don't need to specify every change you are going to do - only the > critical ones where it couples with airflow core. > You have changes for dag_proccessing, executors, scheduler_job and even > migration to add columns. > > https://github.com/howardyoo/airflow/commit/cc83c2b377ac22f0e7ef82e7f59784df972037fd > These are important > > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 10:09 PM Howard Yoo <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Elad, I have updated the AIP-49 with the appropriate changes to >> contain what you requested in your previous comments. I think the AIP is >> fairly comprehensive and ready to be voted, unless there is any objections. >> >> Sincerely, >> Howard >> >> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 11:03 PM Howard Yoo <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>> > >>>>> >>> > I think it may mean all is well, perhaps :-) >>>>> >>> > Howard >>>>> >>> > >>>>> >>> > On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 9:29 AM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> >>>>> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>> 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 < >>>>> [email protected]> 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 >>>>> >>>>
