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

feat: bunch of improvements on blackbox_exporer #224

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

anarcat
Copy link

@anarcat anarcat commented Sep 28, 2023

This puts the config file in /etc/prometheus, allows changes to the binary name (so we can use the Debian package directly).

Closes: #178

Signed-off-by: Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org>
@anarcat anarcat force-pushed the blackbox_exporter_binary_install_dir branch from 8bc2a1b to 6a79f08 Compare September 28, 2023 04:45
@anarcat anarcat changed the title WIP: bunch of improvements on blackbox_exporer feat: bunch of improvements on blackbox_exporer Sep 28, 2023
roles/blackbox_exporter/defaults/main.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

blackbox_exporter_binary_install_dir: "/usr/local/bin"
blackbox_exporter_binary_name: "blackbox_exporter"
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't think we want to do this.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

could you expand on this? what exactly do we want to not do here, and why?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't see any need/benefit with having the binary name customizable, we should keep the options at minimal and avoid having options just for options sake.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

this is not options option's sake: i have modified this option for it to be compatible with the debian package....

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ah apologies. At the moment we do not support other installation methods than the binary install method that's currently in the roles.
When and if we expand that into rpm/deb/etc. packages we would definitely want the roles to install those packages, then variables such as these would most likely be populated internally in the role and not user configurable.
With that being said, such a feature would be a major change and I would first like to take care of some streamlining/deduplicating of tasks in the roles we currently have. (#64 )

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ah. well, i guess one thing i'm saying is you're almost there and you just need to use the right binary name here. i've deployed prom on a debian 12 host using this playbook and it kind of worked after the bunch of patches i had to roll here...

Signed-off-by: Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org>
This is for backwards compatibility with Debian packages.

Signed-off-by: Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org>
Signed-off-by: Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org>
@anarcat anarcat force-pushed the blackbox_exporter_binary_install_dir branch from 6a79f08 to f1d810d Compare September 30, 2023 20:06
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Update blackbox_exporter config
3 participants