You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The migration document (https://github.com/redhat-developer/gitops-operator/blob/master/docs/Migration_Guide.md) recommends sticking with the argocd namespace instead of migrating to the openshift-gitops namespace. While this is certainly convenient for existing users of community argo the downside is that AFAIK cluster monitoring will not pick up the argocd namespace since it only monitors openshift-* namespaces like openshift-gitops.
As a result customers lose out on alerting for out of sync applications and general monitoring of the instance. It is possible to deploy the user workload monitoring stack which should pick this up but it is a separate, parallel monitoring stack that is not installed by default. I'm also not sure if the user workload monitoring will trigger the included alert for openshift-gitops?
If my reasoning is correct should we include a note about this in the migration document?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The migration document (https://github.com/redhat-developer/gitops-operator/blob/master/docs/Migration_Guide.md) recommends sticking with the
argocd
namespace instead of migrating to theopenshift-gitops
namespace. While this is certainly convenient for existing users of community argo the downside is that AFAIK cluster monitoring will not pick up theargocd
namespace since it only monitorsopenshift-*
namespaces like openshift-gitops.As a result customers lose out on alerting for out of sync applications and general monitoring of the instance. It is possible to deploy the user workload monitoring stack which should pick this up but it is a separate, parallel monitoring stack that is not installed by default. I'm also not sure if the user workload monitoring will trigger the included alert for openshift-gitops?
If my reasoning is correct should we include a note about this in the migration document?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: