Updated Cortex architecture doc and documented the experimental blocks storage#1945
Conversation
|
Nice work with the docs. Frontend section is looking good. |
thorfour
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
minor nit around some wording otherwise LGTM from the TSDB side of things.
689c800 to
f86df9c
Compare
|
Thanks @owen-d and @gotjosh. I've addressed your comments. May you re-check it, please?
@gotjosh Yes, definitely. I'm just a bit dubious about the "Blocks" and "Chunks" uppercase letter. If we decide to go into this direction, it's better if we decide the rationale and I take care of all the changes cause there are many (more than then the places you edited). So far, I've kept them lowercase. |
gotjosh
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry Marco, for leaving you with more comments 🙈. Safe to say my comments are optional - feel free to pick the ones that make sense to you.
Overall, great job on these docs - the improvement is superb! 🍾
docs/architecture.md
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In my opinion, this section is one slightly more complex pieces of Cortex. You've done a fantastic job trying to expand on it, but I'm not sure about the way it reads.
If you feel strongly about it we can leave it as is, if you have doubts - I'm happy to take a stab and try to reword it and perhaps add a small diagram to it. What do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I never feel very strong about something, and I'm always open to discussion 😉 That being said, I would appreciate if could express the same concept in a easier way.
About the diagram, sure. I also thought about it, but I didn't (yet) because I'm not sure how to draw a diagram in a way which will be easily editable by other contributors in the future (ie. which tool to use? where should we share the sources?).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I tend to use mermaid for that exact same reasons. The source code is extremely simple which makes it easy to check it into version control and they have a live editor which means anyone can copy/paste then start editing right away.
Let's merge this as is and I'll create a follow-up issue assigned to me to come up with something.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have created #1949 to record this conversation. Let me know what you think.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it's good not blocking this PR with the improved ring description. I will comment the issue.
@pracucci I'll leave that in your hands then. My opinion is that if these components have their own semantics they should be consider proper nouns e.g. A Block within Cortex does not fall under the regular definition of the word. As I linked in the Prometheus doc, not capitalizing makes sense if we refer to them as adjectives e.g. block files or index files - in every other case, they should. |
f399e7e to
ac912b6
Compare
Ok @gotjosh. May you check it again, please? I've capitalized them - when they're nouns (at least I believe they are) - in the commit 0e481f3 |
gotjosh
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I reviewed the architecture doc from Storage to right before Quorum consistency. Looks good from my side 👌
docs/architecture.md
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe mention that you can run all of them together in a single process mode too?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Right. What's about now?
docs/architecture.md
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would say that this is mostly us tbh. We might also be the only ones who are running it this way. Others are still using the defaults and it works for them. For us, it was sparked by one big customer that had an huge number of metrics with the same label-name.
I think the doc makes it sound like the shard-by-all should be the way to go for everyone, but for most people the defaults should be fine.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I simplified it, removing "opinions" and just leaving the trade-off mention.
docs/architecture.md
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Contrary to the sole replication --> what does this mean?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It means, "differently then when you setup a cluster only with the replication and without the WAL"
Signed-off-by: Marco Pracucci <marco@pracucci.com>
Signed-off-by: Marco Pracucci <marco@pracucci.com>
Signed-off-by: Marco Pracucci <marco@pracucci.com>
Signed-off-by: Marco Pracucci <marco@pracucci.com>
Signed-off-by: Marco Pracucci <marco@pracucci.com>
0e481f3 to
72e47bf
Compare
Signed-off-by: Marco Pracucci <marco@pracucci.com>
|
@gotjosh @gouthamve I've addressed your comments and replied to a couple. May you take another look, please? |
What this PR does:
In this PR:
Notes to the reviewer:
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
N/A
Checklist
CHANGELOG.mdupdated - the order of entries should be[CHANGE],[FEATURE],[ENHANCEMENT],[BUGFIX]