-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 17
[Meta] elastic-agent-shipper journey to GA #197
Comments
In either the experimental or beta criteria we need an item to track that the shipper is debuggable using only the information collected by the agent diagnostics command.
Maybe this is implicit in the two items above, but I think we really want to know how the performance of the agent with the shipper compares to the performance of the agent without shipper before we can recommend anyone use it as a beta. I think I would rather see "performance is as good as current Beats under agent for all performance use cases" as a Beta requirement to set expectations properly for ourselves, we don't want to pursue this only at the end. If there is some unexpected challenge here we can defer it from the Beta criteria later, but ideally we can make the shipper a performance improvement.
I don't think we need global processors to be GA, because this is a completely new feature. This could be done at any time.
What does "finalized" mean here? We may want to be cautious about coupling the shipper GA criteria to a GA-able implementation of automatic output tuning. Ideally we can include this though, it is likely necessary to avoid annoying configuration migrations (for existing |
Added. |
Moved the "performance as good as curent Beats under agent" up to beta |
I'm in favor of moving this post GA. The reason it on the list is because we don't seem to have a list of features for MVP, so I was going off the assumption that all of the ones listed in the design doc would be needed for GA. |
I was thinking "finalized" would be the user facing portion, so if we need to change the configuration parameters we can up to this point, but after this we have to worry about configuration migration. Maybe it would be better to rename this to something like "finalize configuration options for GA"? |
Agreed, let's make that change to clarify this. |
This is listed in beta but to me it seems like we might want it for experimental, or at least some partial solution -- today the shipper can only target a single hardcoded Elasticsearch index. We could easily make that single index configurable, but it would still be a single fixed index. Targeting multiple indices with a single shipper would likely require updates to the support library (I've created an issue for the main technical dependency here). I'm not sure how we expect people to use the experimental releases, but to me it seems like sending all inputs from all sources to a single fixed index would rule out an awful lot of use cases, even for testing. Overall the question of index / data stream selection could use a lot more clarity... I gather that at some point the output data streams will all be managed through agent, but I'm not sure we have a definite plan how that will happen. Maybe "Event index / datastream can be derived from the agent policy" should be its own item on the checklist, since getting that information from upstream is a separate process than just supporting selectors internally? |
The gRPC Event has the datastream field. https://github.com/elastic/elastic-agent-shipper-client/blob/a7eedbe6bd6c711eac7ee1b2f7d7cf6ea03155be/api/messages/publish.proto#L56-L63 Is that sufficient for index / data stream selection? |
Moved it to |
Fill in checklists below with issues
Checklist to achieve
experimental
statusChecklist to achieve
beta
statusbeta
(see [Meta] disk queue journey to GA #118)elastic-agent diagnostics
command.Checklist to achieve
ga
statusga
(see [Meta] disk queue journey to GA #118)Previous
Below is what we had when elastic-agent-shipper was a separate repo, with all new code.
Keeping for historic reasons.
Checklist to achieve
experimental
statusexperimental
(see [Meta] disk queue journey to GA #118)mage test:integration
#244Checklist to achieve
beta
statusbeta
(see [Meta] disk queue journey to GA #118)elastic-agent diagnostics
command.Checklist to achieve
ga
statusga
(see [Meta] disk queue journey to GA #118)The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: