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

Deprecated Cortex chunks storage #4268

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jun 18, 2021
Merged

Conversation

pracucci
Copy link
Contributor

@pracucci pracucci commented Jun 8, 2021

What this PR does:
During the last Cortex community meeting we discussed about deprecating the Cortex chunks storage and putting it into maintenance mode. This PR proposes to do the first step and announce it (CHANGELOG + doc).

No config change has been done to switch the default storage from chunks to blocks, in order to not introduce any breaking change.

I'm also proposing to delete k8s/ manifests (as discussed during the last community meeting as well) because they're out of date, unmaintained and some config is also broken. We're seen some users getting confused by it so, unless we'll start actively maintaining and continuously testing them, I think it's better to get rid of them.

If this PR will be accepted & merged, I will also take care of gently closing all open PRs proposing non-bug fix changes to the chunks storage.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
N/A

Checklist

  • Tests updated
  • Documentation added
  • CHANGELOG.md updated - the order of entries should be [CHANGE], [FEATURE], [ENHANCEMENT], [BUGFIX]

Signed-off-by: Marco Pracucci <[email protected]>
Copy link
Contributor

@bboreham bboreham left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Good job. I think the engine will still default to chunks, so perhaps explain that, with reference to our compatibility guarantees.

Signed-off-by: Marco Pracucci <[email protected]>

Co-authored-by: Bryan Boreham <[email protected]>
@pracucci
Copy link
Contributor Author

pracucci commented Jun 8, 2021

I think the engine will still default to chunks, so perhaps explain that, with reference to our compatibility guarantees.

@bboreham Good point. Where do you suggest to mention it, other than the CHANGELOG?

pracucci added 2 commits June 8, 2021 18:06
Signed-off-by: Marco Pracucci <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Marco Pracucci <[email protected]>
@bboreham
Copy link
Contributor

bboreham commented Jun 8, 2021

Perhaps at the top of docs/configuration/arguments.md ?

I think it could be on the flag too:

f.StringVar(&cfg.Engine, "store.engine", "chunks", "The storage engine to use: chunks or blocks.")

E.g. "The storage engine to use: chunks (deprecated) or blocks."

@bboreham
Copy link
Contributor

I guess we would also close all issues relating to the chunks storage: storage/chunks Chunks storage engine

Copy link
Contributor

@jtlisi jtlisi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@pracucci Any thoughts on potential reducing the usage of chunks storage in the e2e tests on the repo? We are starting to hit close to 30 minutes per run and shaving a few minutes off would be nice.

@pstibrany
Copy link
Contributor

Deprecating chunks sounds good to me, but having deprecated default value for non-deprecated option looks weird. Is it time to make Cortex 2 release to fix this, and do some options cleanup?

@bboreham
Copy link
Contributor

Agreed on changing the default and on reducing e2e testing, later, but getting the "deprecated" message in front of people is a priority.

@bboreham bboreham merged commit e511415 into master Jun 18, 2021
@pracucci pracucci deleted the chunks-storage-in-maintenance-mode branch June 18, 2021 12:36
@pracucci
Copy link
Contributor Author

I've created a meta issue to track the next steps about deprecating the chunks storage:
#4295

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants