docs: add task topic to migrate from Flow mode to Alloy #104
Conversation
clayton-cornell
added
the
type/docs
| - Set `--stability.level` to `experimental` if you are using any of the following components: | ||
| - [otelcol.receiver.vcenter] | ||
| - Otherwise, `--stability.level` may be omitted or set to the default value (`generally-available`). | ||
| - When installing on Kubernetes, update your `values.yaml` file to rename the `agent` key to `alloy`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
does the config sometimes exist in the values.yaml file? I'm not sure if you need or want to mention in the steps about that so someone doesn't quickly start up a duplicate config.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There can be (agent.configMap.content / alloy.configMap.content), but I think this falls under the general "configure Alloy" instruction bucket. The user will have to refer back to other pages to learn how to configure Alloy for their specific platform.
Co-authored-by: Clayton Cornell <[email protected]>
|
@clayton-cornell Erik was worried someone would see this guide and get overwhelmed by the amount of content in it. He suggested finding a place to comment something along the lines of "if you don't care about downtime, just uninstall Flow and then install Alloy as a new binary." Neither of us were quite sure how to phrase that so I left it out of the initial PR. What do you think? Should we try to include something about the "quicker" path here? |
|
Added something at the top, but it probably needs a little TLC on the phrasing. |
| - Custom command-line flags configured in Grafana Agent Flow should be reflected in your {{< param "PRODUCT_NAME" >}} installation. | ||
| - {{< param "PRODUCT_NAME" >}} may need to be deployed with the `--stability.level` flag in [run] to enable non-stable components: | ||
| - Set `--stability.level` to `public-preview` if you are using any of these components: | ||
| - [discovery.process] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we want to explicitly call these out since this may change over time or is this laser focused on 0.40.x to alloy 1.0?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hm, we could, two things come to mind though:
- It's unlikely we'll add new components after 0.40
- It would generally go against the idea of "timeless documentation" but if we think it's important enough we can probably bend that rule
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Timeless documentation is a guideline... and we bend it quite a bit across the Agent/Alloy docs (I am slowly weeding it out, but there will always be cases where time-based content important)
I missed this question. I see a note at the top of the topic explaining things. That is probably enough. |
Co-authored-by: Clayton Cornell <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Clayton Cornell <[email protected]>
rfratto
added
the
backport-to-agent:no
Thanks to @erikbaranowski for helping me think this one through :)