Metrics Stability Enhancement

[logicalhan]

Enhancement Description

• One-line enhancement description (can be used as a release note): Introduce a framework for providing stability guarantees for Kubernetes control plane metrics.
• Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals: Metrics Stability Framework, Metrics Validation and Verification, Metrics Migration
• Primary contact (assignee): @logicalhan, @serathius
• Responsible SIGs: sig-instrumentation
• Enhancement target (which target equals to which milestone): This isn't a feature per se, but we intend to have the metrics migrated as of 1.16. The migration itself will be a backwards compatible change.

[kacole2]

@logicalhan How is this different than #1206? Is this an on going genesis of #1206? Or is this a completely new Enhancement?

We need to find an umbrella issue for this if this will be in 1.16

[kacole2]

/close
in favor of #1206

[k8s-ci-robot]

@kacole2: Closing this issue.

In response to this:

/close
in favor of #1206

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[serathius]

@kacole2 This is someone different effort driven by different people. "Kubernetes Metrics Overhaul" is about unifying how metrics are written. This effort is about introducing stability to
K8s metrics by introducing new library.

[kacole2]

@serathius I think there is a disconnect. There needs to be an issue created for each type of Enhancement. I see 3 KEPs here. We've never had 3 KEPs assigned to a single issue.

Can we update the title to be more descriptive? Can we also update the description to be more descriptive of what this enhancement should be tracking? Do all 3 KEPs align to this "single" enhancement?

The way I see it.

1. Metric Migration is one issue (is this Kubernetes Metrics Overhaul #1206 ?)
2. New Metric Library is another issue. (is stability part of this? and it needs to be called out in graduation criteria in the KEP)

@lachie83 @mrbobbytables @justaugustus

[logicalhan]

We are actually going to merge these under the metrics overhaul KEP, since the stability work is (at this point) a precondition of the overhaul metric deprecation.

[ehashman]

I'm going to reopen this as the original tracker for metrics stability, as it's still in beta and hasn't GA'd

[ehashman]

It's not letting me edit the first comment but here's my updated description.

I'm going to try to merge the three different docs into a single lifecycled KEP.

Enhancement Description

• One-line enhancement description (can be used as a release note): Introduce a framework for providing stability guarantees for Kubernetes control plane metrics
• Kubernetes Enhancement Proposal: Metrics Stability Framework, Metrics Validation and Verification, Metrics Migration, Control Plane Metrics Stability
• Discussion Link:
• Primary contact (assignee): @logicalhan, @serathius
• Responsible SIGs: Instrumentation
• Enhancement target (which target equals to which milestone):
  • Alpha release target (x.y): 1.15
  • Beta release target (x.y): 1.17
  • Stable release target (x.y): 1.21

[ehashman]

As a SIG (per 2021-01-21 meeting) we want to graduate this to stable in 1.21. We need to update the KEP (and get that merged) in order to track what's remaining for this...

[ehashman]

/milestone v1.21

[JamesLaverack]

👋 Hey @logicalhan and @serathius, 1.21 enhancements shadow here.

This enhancement is being tracked for the 1.21 release, but I have a few queries about your KEP.

• I understand that this is going GA in 1.21, but the stage field in your kep.yaml states it's going to beta. Is this out of date?
• There's a TODO, mentioning @logicalhan in the Beta -> GA graduation section, does this need to be resolved?
• Five different SIGs (Api Machinery, Node, Scheduling, Cluster Lifecycle, and Cloud Provider) are marked as parcitipating. Do they need to do anything for the GA graduation, and if so are they signed on?
• You don't have a production readiness review. As of 1.21 this is a requirement for enhancements. The stub section in the KEP mentions that @logicalhan can write one?

[ehashman]

I believe all concerns in the comment above were addressed in #2431.

[JamesLaverack]

Hi @logicalhan and @serathius,

Since your Enhancement is scheduled to be in 1.21, please keep in mind the important upcoming dates:

• Tuesday, March 9th: Week 9 — Code Freeze
• Tuesday, March 16th: Week 10 — Docs Placeholder PR deadline
  • If this enhancement requires new docs or modification to existing docs, please follow the steps in the Open a placeholder PR doc to open a PR against k/website repo.

As a reminder, please link all of your k/k PR(s) and k/website PR(s) to this issue so we can track them.

Thanks!

[JamesLaverack]

Hi @logicalhan and @serathius

Enhancements team is marking this enhancement as "At Risk" for the upcoming code freeze due to not seeing any linked k/k PR(s) for this enhancement.

Please make sure to provide all k/k PR(s) and k/website PR(s) to this issue so it can be tracked by the release team.

[ehashman]

@logicalhan can you link the PRs adding stable metrics here?

[JamesLaverack]

Hi @logicalhan and @serathius,

A friendly reminder that Code freeze is 3 days away, March 9th EOD PST

Any enhancements that are NOT code complete by the freeze will be removed from the milestone and will require an exception to be added back.

Please also keep in mind that if this enhancement requires new docs or modification to existing docs, you'll need to follow the steps in the Open a placeholder PR doc to open a PR against k/website repo by March 16th EOD PST

Thanks!

[logicalhan]

@logicalhan can you link the PRs adding stable metrics here?

kubernetes/kubernetes#99788
kubernetes/kubernetes#99785

[logicalhan]

Also, these two PRs were relevant: kubernetes/kubernetes#99217 & kubernetes/kubernetes#98739

[logicalhan]

Enhancements team is marking this enhancement as "At Risk" for the upcoming code freeze due to not seeing any linked k/k PR(s) for this enhancement.

Ah, sorry about that. I linked the PRs. There is only one pending (which is #99785). It's pretty much good to go, once I hear back from @brancz, I can lgtm/approve it. Personally, I'd characterize this as low risk.

[logicalhan]

Oh there is one more PR: kubernetes/kubernetes#99925

(it's been approved and is passing CI so it should merge today)

[JamesLaverack]

Thanks for the clarification @logicalhan. Is the only one left to merge kubernetes/kubernetes#99785?

[logicalhan]

Thanks for the clarification @logicalhan. Is the only one left to merge kubernetes/kubernetes#99785?

Yes and I have the requisite approval OWNER ACLs for those files, so there isn't any reason it shouldn't merge today. I'm just waiting on a reply from @brancz.

[annajung]

Hi @logicalhan, with the following PRs merged, we're marking this as code complete for the 1.21 release.

• promote apiserver_request_total to STABLE status kubernetes#99788
• metrics: etcd_object_counts->apiserver_storage_object_counts(stable) kubernetes#99785
• allow explicit disabling of metrics as an escape hatch. kubernetes#99217
• Wire up static-analysis so that it executes in the normal 'hack' flow kubernetes#98739
• promote apiserver_request_duration_seconds to STABLE kubernetes#99925

[logicalhan]

Hi @logicalhan, with the following PRs merged, we're marking this as code complete for the 1.21 release.

• kubernetes/kubernetes#99788
• kubernetes/kubernetes#99785
• kubernetes/kubernetes#99217
• kubernetes/kubernetes#98739
• kubernetes/kubernetes#99925

Should be code complete now 😄

Thanks for your help!!

[PI-Victor]

Hello @logicalhan , 1.21 Docs shadow here.
Does this enhancement work planned for 1.21 require any new docs or modification to existing docs?
If so, please follows the steps here to open a PR against dev-1.21 branch in the k/website repo. This PR can be just a placeholder at this time and must be created by March 16 EOD PST
Also take a look at Documenting for a release to get yourself familiarize with the docs requirement for the release.
Thank you!

[ehashman]

Exception request filed for fixing one stable metric's name: https://groups.google.com/g/kubernetes-sig-instrumentation/c/Uqx4uXxnseg

@PI-Victor we have a list of stable metrics in k/k that is automatically pulled into documentation. I don't believe we have any additional documentation required for graduation.

[ehashman]

If RT is looking for blog posts, I think this would be an appropriate KEP to feature for the 1.21 release. @logicalhan and I had drafted a blog post for 1.16 that never got run which we can update.

[palnabarun]

@ehashman -- thank you for the ping! 👍🏽

cc: @divya-mohan0209 you may want to have a look at this for the feature blogs.

[divya-mohan0209]

@ehashman -- thank you for the ping! 👍🏽

cc: @divya-mohan0209 you may want to have a look at this for the feature blogs.

@Pensu : PTAL & liaise with @ehashman for further tracking of the feature blog. Thank you @palnabarun & @ehashman for notifying us!

[annajung]

Hi @logicalhan @serathius 1.21 Enhancement Lead here.

Can you update the kep.yaml to reflect a status of implemented:

enhancements/keps/sig-instrumentation/1209-metrics-stability/kep.yaml

Line 16 in 29a891b

status: implementable

Once that merges, we can close out this issue.

[logicalhan]

Hi @logicalhan @serathius 1.21 Enhancement Lead here.

Can you update the kep.yaml to reflect a status of implemented:

enhancements/keps/sig-instrumentation/1209-metrics-stability/kep.yaml

Line 16 in 29a891b

status: implementable

Once that merges, we can close out this issue.

#2612

[annajung]

with enhancement graduated to stable and #2612 merged, I am closing out this issue