-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 89
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
Operations with grafana, loki, promtail, prometheus #17
Conversation
user: "104:1000" | ||
volumes: | ||
- ./run/grafana:/var/lib/grafana | ||
- ../../../config/stage/ops/grafana/defaults.ini:/usr/share/grafana/conf/defaults.ini |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is ops
really a stage? I'd expected this to be part of dev
. In concrete deployment scenarios I'd differentiate Keycloak environments that secure internal core services (JIRA, confluence, grafana etc.) from Keycloak environments that secure application domains.
We need to think more about how we can represent this in our example, for now the pseudo ops
stage is fine, but I think we need an additional layer here to express the scope of the Keycloak environment, e.g. the domain (application / internal).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, i think this is a pretty nice point to discuss. I considered ops to be something central not necessarily aligned to the stages of domain apps or keycloak. Could be different and central and might be of minor interest to keycloak? Stages could be done via different labels? Lets discuss :)
Https is not tested so far. | ||
|
||
## Prometheus | ||
Keycloak does not protect [Prometheus](https://prometheus.io/). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We cloud add an reverse proxy in front of those unprotected services to protect them
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In general we could decide if we want these services to be exposed and protected?
If they should be protected, I would work on the keycloak integration. Until then the ports are not exposed via docker by default? Is the proxy a proposal to use keycloak for protecting these sites?
# - ../../../config/stage/ops/loki/:/etc/loki/ | ||
|
||
acme-promtail: | ||
image: grafana/promtail:2.0.0 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is it possible to feed Keycloak logs just from the container stdout, e.g. by configuring a proper log driver for the container instead of writing a log file?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Seems to be open on promtail: grafana/loki#3374
And for sure this could be a reason to skip promtail and try something different....
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
logging driver works with fluentbit, so i will try to replace promtail with fulentbit... thx for the hint
Loki and promtail must go. |
No description provided.