Detailed storage metrics of internal state

[gnufied]

Feature Description

• Expose detailed metrics of internal state of various storage components
• Primary contact (assignee): Hemant Kumar (@gnufied)
• Responsible SIGs: #sig-storage
• Design proposal link (community repo): Add a proposal for addional volume metrics community#1289
• Reviewer(s) - @saad-ali @childsb
• Approver (likely from SIG/area to which feature belongs): #sig-storage
• Feature target (which target equals to which milestone):
  • Alpha release target (x.y)
  • Beta release target (x.y)
  • Stable release target (x.y)

[gnufied]

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Fh0T60T_y888LsRwC51CQHO75b2IZ3A34ZQS71s_F0g/edit?usp=sharing is current list

[idvoretskyi]

@gnufied can you fill the "feature target" section please?

[aglitke]

Do we want to add a metric for the number of PVs which are attached to unresponsive hosts? This situation indicates bad cluster health which currently requires manual intervention to resolve.

[gnufied]

@aglitke that sounds like a good idea, we will add it to the google doc.

[gnufied]

@idvoretskyi since these are basically metrics they go to GA.

[idvoretskyi]

@gnufied based on the conversation above, marking as "stable". Can you confirm?

[gnufied]

@idvoretskyi yes that is correct.

[zacharysarah]

@gnufied 👋 Please indicate in the 1.9 feature tracking board
whether this feature needs documentation. If yes, please open a PR and add a link to the tracking spreadsheet. Thanks in advance!

[zacharysarah]

@gnufied Bump for docs ☝️

/cc @idvoretskyi

[gnufied]

We didn't do this for 1.9. Lets bump the milestone for next release.

[idvoretskyi]

@gnufied @saad-ali @kubernetes/sig-storage-feature-requests the feature roadmap is a bit unclear.

Can you update the "Feature target (which target equals to which milestone):" section in the OP?

[Bradamant3]

@gnufied Can you please update docs for 1.10? Also 1.10 feature tracking spreadsheet
Thanks!

[idvoretskyi]

@gnufied @saad-ali @kubernetes/sig-storage-feature-requests can you confirm that this feature is delivered in v1.10?

[Bradamant3]

@gnufied @saad-ali @kubernetes/sig-storage-feature-requests Friday March 9 is the deadline for docs PRs to be merged. Is this feature going to stable into v1.10? If so, we need docs urgently. If not, please let us know! Thanks!

[saad-ali]

This does not need to be tracked for 1.10 milestone

[idvoretskyi]

@saad-ali can you provide the estimated roadmap for the feature?

[redbaron]

This feature was specifically mentioned in 1.10 release notes, but was it actually done or just planned to be done in 1.10 at some point?

[gnufied]

@redbaron This feature in general tracks, general improvement to metrics we emit from storage components. In 1.10 we added additional metrics (namely bound/unbound volume count). In 1.11 the plan is to introduce new metrics that expose problematic state for ease of debugging.

[idvoretskyi]

@redbaron the release notes fix was pushed, thanks for noticing - kubernetes/kubernetes#61840

@gnufied per @saad-ali the progress that was made on this feature hasn't been major enough to be tracked under the features list of 1.10 release.

[idvoretskyi]

@saad-ali @k8s-mirror-storage-feature-requests any plans for 1.11?

cc @justaugustus

[fejta-bot]

Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale.
Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or fejta.
/lifecycle stale

[redbaron]

/remove-lifecycle stale

[justaugustus]

This feature current has no milestone, so we'd like to check in and see if there are any plans for this in Kubernetes 1.12.

If so, please ensure that this issue is up-to-date with ALL of the following information:

• One-line feature description (can be used as a release note):
• Primary contact (assignee):
• Responsible SIGs:
• Design proposal link (community repo):
• Link to e2e and/or unit tests:
• Reviewer(s) - (for LGTM) recommend having 2+ reviewers (at least one from code-area OWNERS file) agreed to review. Reviewers from multiple companies preferred:
• Approver (likely from SIG/area to which feature belongs):
• Feature target (which target equals to which milestone):
  • Alpha release target (x.y)
  • Beta release target (x.y)
  • Stable release target (x.y)

Set the following:

• Description
• Assignee(s)
• Labels:
  • stage/{alpha,beta,stable}
  • sig/*
  • kind/feature

Once this feature is appropriately updated, please explicitly ping @justaugustus, @kacole2, @robertsandoval, @rajendar38 to note that it is ready to be included in the Features Tracking Spreadsheet for Kubernetes 1.12.

---

Please note that Features Freeze is tomorrow, July 31st, after which any incomplete Feature issues will require an Exception request to be accepted into the milestone.

In addition, please be aware of the following relevant deadlines:

• Docs deadline (open placeholder PRs): 8/21
• Test case freeze: 8/28

Please make sure all PRs for features have relevant release notes included as well.

Happy shipping!

P.S. This was sent via automation

[kacole2]

This issue hasn't had any attention for 1.11 or 1.12. I'm going to close it since the k/commnunity proposal has been closed as well.

/close

[k8s-ci-robot]

@kacole2: Closing this issue.

In response to this:

This issue hasn't had any attention for 1.11 or 1.12. I'm going to close it since the k/commnunity proposal has been closed as well.

/close

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.