Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Relating to multiple principals on the same machine #11

Open
simskij opened this issue Oct 16, 2023 · 5 comments
Open

Relating to multiple principals on the same machine #11

simskij opened this issue Oct 16, 2023 · 5 comments

Comments

@simskij
Copy link
Member

simskij commented Oct 16, 2023

Enhancement Proposal

Currently, it's not possible to relate the grafana agent subordinate to multiple principals on the same machine. This is something we need to support as it's common in many solutions that deploy to machine substrates.

The suggested way of solving this, is by having each principal contribute a configuration fragment, and then having the snap entrypoint/wrapper concatenate them on the fly at startup.

@lucabello
Copy link
Contributor

We can relate to multiple principals now; however, we still we need to deal with the multiple instances of grafana-agent overwriting each other.

@skatsaounis
Copy link

If a breaking change like the one below was introduced, would that solve the problem in an easier way?

  • grafana-agent is changing from subordinate charm to machine charm.
  • grafana-agent can be related with many machine charm apps through cos-agent relation, same cos_agent interface
  • on any relation change from any related app, it is re-calculating the metrics, logs, traces since those are the different configuration bits per relation.

Rest of /etc/grafana-agent.yaml configuration options are grafana-agent specific so they can be managed by the existing charm configuration options of grafana-agent-operator.

@skatsaounis
Copy link

On second thoughts, there is also a need for a check on colocation which is solved when being subordinate. So I do not know but maybe you have a better idea.

@lucabello
Copy link
Contributor

Related to #32

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants