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

Dynamic pipelines - a new foreach block #1480

Open
wants to merge 22 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 2 additions & 0 deletions CHANGELOG.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -14,6 +14,8 @@ Main (unreleased)

- Add the possibility to export span events as logs in `otelcol.connector.spanlogs`. (@steve-hb)

- (_Experimental_) A new `foreach` block which starts an Alloy pipeline for each item inside a list. (@wildum, @thampiotr, @ptodev)

### Enhancements

- (_Experimental_) Log instance label key in `database_observability.mysql` (@cristiangreco)
Expand Down
252 changes: 252 additions & 0 deletions docs/design/1443-dynamic-pipelines.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,252 @@
# Proposal: Alloy proposal process

* Author: Paulin Todev (@ptodev), Piotr Gwizdala (@thampiotr)
* Last updated: 2024-08-15
* Original issue: https://github.com/grafana/alloy/issues/1443

## Abstract

We are proposing a new feature to the [Alloy standard library][stdlib].
It will be similar to a `map` operation over a collection such as a `list()`.
Each `map` transformation will be done by a chain of components (a "sub-pipeline") created for this transformation.
ptodev marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
Each item in the collection will be processed by a different "sub-pipeline".
ptodev marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

The final solution may differ from a standard `map` operation, since there may be multiple outputs for the same input.
For example, the sub-pipeline may branch into different `prometheus.relabel` components,
each of which sends outputs to different components outside of the sub-pipeline.

[stdlib]: https://grafana.com/docs/alloy/latest/reference/stdlib/

## Use cases

<!-- TODO: Add more use cases. It'd be helpful to gather feedback from the community and from solutions engineers. -->

### Using discovery components together with prometheus.exporter ones

Discovery components output a list of targets. It's not possible to input those lists directly to most exporter components.

Suppose we have a list of targets produced by a `discovery` component:

```
[
{"__address__" = "redis-one:9115", "instance" = "one"},
{"__address__" = "redis-two:9116", "instance" = "two"},
]
```

The [Alloy type][alloy-types] of the list above is `list(map(string))`.
However, you may want to pipe information from this list of targets to a component which doesn't work with a `list()` or a `map()`.
For example, you may want to input the `"__address__"` string to a `prometheus.exporter.redis`,
and you may want to use the `"instance"` string in a `discovery.relabel`.

[alloy-types]: https://grafana.com/docs/alloy/latest/get-started/configuration-syntax/expressions/types_and_values/

## Proposal 1: A foreach block
ptodev marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

A `foreach` block may start several sub-pipelines for a `collection` specified in its arguments.

```alloy
// All components in the sub-pipeline will be scoped under "foreach.default/1/...".
// Here, "1" is sub-pipeline number 1.
// This way component names won't clash with other sub-pipelines from the same foreach,
// and with the names of components outside of the foreach.
foreach "default" {

// "collection" is what the for loop will iterate over.
collection = discovery.file.default.targets

// Each item in the collection will be accessible via the "target" variable.
// E.g. `target["__address__"]`.
var = "target"

// A sub-pipeline consisting of components which process each target.
...
}
```

<details>
<summary>Example</summary>

```alloy
discovery.file "default" {
files = ["/Users/batman/Desktop/redis_addresses.yaml"]
}

// Every component defined in the "foreach" block will be instantiated for each item in the collection.
// The instantiated components will be scoped using the name of the foreach block and the index of the
// item in the collection. For example: /foreach.redis/0/prometheus.exporter.redis.default
ptodev marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
foreach "redis" {
collection = discovery.file.default.targets
// Here, "target" is a variable whose value is the current item in the collection.
var = "target"

prometheus.exporter.redis "default" {
redis_addr = target["__address__"] // we can also do the necessary rewrites before this.
}

discovery.relabel "default" {
targets = prometheus.exporter.redis.default.targets
// Add a label which comes from the discovery component.
rule {
target_label = "filepath"
// __meta_filepath comes from discovery.file
replacement = target["__meta_filepath"]
}
}

prometheus.scrape "default" {
targets = discovery.relabel.default.targets
forward_to = prometheus.remote_write.mimir.receiver
}
}

prometheus.remote_write "mimir" {
endpoint {
url = "https://prometheus-prod-05-gb-south-0.grafana.net/api/prom/push"
basic_auth {
username = ""
password = ""
}
}
}
```

</details>

Pros:
* The `foreach` name is consistent with other programming languages.

Cons:
* It looks less like a component than a `declare.dynamic` block.
ptodev marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
In order to instantiate multiple `foreach` blocks with similar config, you'd have to wrap them in a `declare` block.

## Proposal 2: A declare.dynamic block

A new `declare.dynamic` block would create a custom component which starts several sub-pipelines internally.
Users can use `argument` and `export` blocks, just like in a normal `declare` block.

```alloy
declare.dynamic "ex1" {
argument "input_targets" {
optional = false
comment = "We will create a sub-pipeline for each target in input_targets."
}

argument "output_metrics" {
optional = false
comment = "All the metrics gathered from all pipelines."
}

// A sub-pipeline consisting of components which process each target.
...
}

declare.dynamic.ex1 "default" {
input_targets = discovery.file.default.targets
output_metrics = [prometheus.remote_write.mimir.receiver]
}
```

<details>
<summary>Example</summary>

```alloy
// declare.dynamic "maps" each target to a sub-pipeline.
// Each sub-pipeline has 1 exporter, 1 relabel, and 1 scraper.
// Internally, maybe one way this can be done via serializing the pipeline to a string and then importing it as a module?
ptodev marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
declare.dynamic "redis_exporter" {
argument "input_targets" {
optional = false
comment = "We will create a sub-pipeline for each target in input_targets."
}

argument "output_metrics" {
optional = false
comment = "All the metrics gathered from all pipelines."
}

// "id" is a special identifier for every "sub-pipeline".
// The number of "sub-pipelines" is equal to len(input_targets).
prometheus.exporter.redis id {
redis_addr = input_targets["__address__"]
}

discovery.relabel id {
targets = prometheus.exporter.redis[id].targets
// Add a label which comes from the discovery component.
rule {
target_label = "filepath"
// __meta_filepath comes from discovery.file
replacement = input_targets["__meta_filepath"]
}
}

prometheus.scrape id {
targets = prometheus.exporter.redis[id].targets
forward_to = output_metrics
}

}
discovery.file "default" {
files = ["/Users/batman/Desktop/redis_addresses.yaml"]
}

declare.dynamic.redis_exporter "default" {
input_targets = discovery.file.default.targets
output_metrics = [prometheus.remote_write.mimir.receiver]
}

prometheus.remote_write "mimir" {
endpoint {
url = "https://prometheus-prod-05-gb-south-0.grafana.net/api/prom/push"
basic_auth {
username = ""
password = ""
}
}
}
```

</details>

Pros:
* Looks more like a component than a `foreach` block.
* Flexible number of inputs and outputs.

Cons:
* A name such as `declare.dynamic` doesn't sound as familiar to most people than `foreach`.
* It may not be practical to implement this in a way that there's more than one possible input collection.
* How can we limit users to having just one collection?
* Having another variant of the `declare` block can feel complex.
Can we just add this functionality to the normal `declare` block, so that we can avoid having a `declare.dynamic` block?

## Proposal 3: Do nothing

It is customary to always include a "do nothing" proposal, in order to evaluate if the work is really required.

Pros:
* No effort required.
* Alloy's syntax is simpler since we're not adding any new types of blocks.

Cons:
* Not possible to integrate most `prometheus.exporter` components with the `discovery` ones.

## Unknowns

We should find answers to the unknowns below before this proposal is accepted:

* Will the solution only work for `list()`? What about `map()`?
* If we go with a `foreach`, we could have a `key` attribute in addition to the `var` one. That way we can also access the key. The `key` attribute can be a no-op if `collection` is a map?
ptodev marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
* What about debug metrics? Should we aggregate the metrics for all "sub-pipelines"?
* If there is 1 series for each sub-pipeline, the amount of metrics could be huge.
ptodev marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
Some service discovery mechanisms may generate a huge number of elements in a list of targets.
* If we want to aggregate the metrics, how would we do that? Is it even possible to do in within Alloy?
* Can we have a configuration parameter which dictates whether the metrics should be aggregated or not?
ptodev marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
* Do we have to recreate the sub-pipelines every time a new collection is received,
even if the new collection has the same number of elements?
ptodev marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
* Do we need to have more than one output, of a different type?
ptodev marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
* Do we need to have more than one input, of a different type?
ptodev marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

## Recommended solution

<!-- TODO: Fill this later -->
Loading
Loading