K3s Traefik Ingress - configured for your homelab!

I recently purchased a used Lenovo M900 Think Centre (i7 with 32GB RAM) from eBay to expand my mini-homelab, which was just a single Synology DS218+ plugged into my ISP's router (yuck!). Since I've been spending a big chunk of time at work playing around with Kubernetes, I figured that I'd put my skills to the test and run a k3s node on the new server. While I was familiar with k3s before starting this project, I'd never actually run it before, opting for tools like kind (and minikube before that) to run small test clusters for my local development work.

K3s comes "batteries-included" and is packaged with all of the core components that are needed to run a cluster. For ingress, this component is Traefik, something which I also never had any hands-on experience with.

After a bit of trial-and-error, along with some help from the docs, I was able to figure out how to configure the Traefik ingress to expose a service on the new node to the rest of my LAN. This post will go into detail about how I did it, in case you've also installed k3s on a node in your own lab and want to know how to use the pre-bundled Traefik ingress.

Installing k3s

The k3s installation process is fairly straightforward. It just requires curling https://get.k3s.io and executing the script. The default settings all make sense to me, except for the need to chmod the bundled kubeconfig since its default filemode is inaccessible to non-root users. Luckly, k3s has a solution for that! All you need to do is export K3S_KUBECONFIG_MODE="644" before you run the installation, and the k3s install script does the rest.

Configuring Traefik

By default, host ports 80 and 443 are exposed by the bundled Traefik ingress controller. This will let you create HTTP and HTTPS ingresses on their standard ports.

But of course, I want to run a QuestDB instance on my node, which uses two additional TCP ports for Influx Line Protocol (ILP) and Pgwire communication with the database. So how can I expose these extra ports on my node and route traffic to the QuestDB container running inside of k3s?

K3s deploys Traefik via a Helm chart and allows you to modify that chart's values.yaml through a HelmChartConfig resource. To further customize values.yaml files for installed charts, you can place extra HelmChartConfig manifests in /var/lib/rancher/k3s/server/manifests. Here is my /var/lib/rancher/k3s/server/manifests/traefik-config.yaml:

apiVersion: helm.cattle.io/v1
kind: HelmChartConfig
  name: traefik
  namespace: kube-system
  valuesContent: |-
        port: 8812
        expose: true
        exposedPort: 8812
        protocol: TCP
        port: 9009
        expose: true
        exposedPort: 9009
        protocol: TCP

This manifest modifies the Traefik deployment to serve two extra TCP ports on the host: 8812 for Pgwire and 9009 for ILP. Along with these new ports, Traefik also ships with its default "web" and "websecure" ports that route HTTP and HTTPS traffic respectively. But this is already preconfigured for you in the Helm chart, so there's no extra work involved.

So now that we have our ports exposed, lets figure out how to route traffic from them to our QuestDB instance running inside the cluster.


While you can use traditional k8s Ingresses to configure external access to cluster resources, Traefik v2 also includes new, more flexible types of ingress that coordinate directly with the Traefik deployment. These can be configured by using Traefik-specific Custom Resources, which allow users to specify cluster ingress routes using Traefik's custom routing rules instead of the standard URI-based routing traditionally found in k8s. Using these rules, you can route requests not just based on hostnames and paths, but also by request headers, querystrings, and source IPs, with regex matching support for many of these options. This unlocks significantly more flexibility when routing traffic into your cluster as opposed to using a standard k8s ingress.

Here's an example of an IngressRoute that I use to expose the QuestDB web console.

kind: IngressRoute
  name: questdb
  namespace: questdb
    - web
    - kind: Rule
      match: Host(`my-hostname`)
        - kind: Service
          name: questdb
          port: 9000

This CRD maps the QuestDB service port 9000 to host port 80 through the web entrypoint, which as I mentioned above, comes pre-installed in the Traefik Helm chart. With this config, I can now access the console by navigating to http://my-hostname/ in my web browser and Traefik will route the request to my QuestDB HTTP service.


It's important to note that IngressRoutes are used solely for HTTP ingress routing. Raw TCP routing is done using IngressRouteTCPs, and there are also IngressRouteUDPs available for you to use as well.

To support the TCP-based ILP and Pgwire protocols, I created 2 IngressRouteTCP resources to handle traffic on host ports 9009 and 8812.

apiVersion: traefik.containo.us/v1alpha1
kind: IngressRouteTCP
  name: questdb-ilp
  namespace: questdb
    - ilp
    - match: HostSNI(`*`)
        - name: questdb
          port: 9009
          terminationDelay: -1
apiVersion: traefik.containo.us/v1alpha1
kind: IngressRouteTCP
  name: questdb-psql
  namespace: questdb
    - psql
    - match: HostSNI(`*`)
        - name: questdb
          port: 8812

Here, we use the TCP-specific HostSNI matcher to route all node traffic on ports 9009 (ilp) and 8812 (psql) to the questdb service. The ilp and psql entrypoints correspond to the ilp and psql ports that we exposed in the traefik-config.yaml.

Now we're able to access QuestDB on all 3 supported ports on my k3s node from the rest of my home network.


I hope this example gives you a bit more confidence when configuring Traefik on a single-node k3s "cluster". It may be a bit confusing at first, but once you have the basics down, you'll be exposing all of your hosted services in no time!

Since we're only working with one node, there's a limited amount of routing flexibility that I could include in the Traefik CRD configurations. In a more complex environment, you can really go wild with all of the possibilities that are provided by Traefik routing rules! Still, the benefit of this simple example is that you can learn the basics in a small and controlled environment, and then add complexity once it's needed.

Remember, if you're using k3s clustering mode and running multiple nodes, you'll need to route traffic using an external load balancer like Haproxy. Maybe I'll play around with this if I ever pick up a second M900 or other mini-desktop. But until then, I'll stick with this ingress configuration.

We moved our Cloud operations to a Kubernetes Operator

Kubernetes operators seem to be everywhere these days. There are hundreds of them available to install in your cluster. Operators manage everything from X.509 certificates to enterprise-y database deployments, service meshes, and monitoring stacks. But why add even more complexity to a system that many say is already convoluted? With an operator controlling cluster resources, if you have a bug, you now have two problems: figuring out which of the myriad of Kubernetes primitives is causing the issue, as well as understanding how that dang operator is contributing to the problem!

So when I proposed the idea of introducing a custom-built operator into our Cloud infrastructure stack, I knew that I had to really sell it as a true benefit to the company, so people wouldn't think that I was spending my time on a piece of RDD vaporware. After the go-ahead to begin the project, I spent my days learning about Kubernetes internals, scouring the internet far and wide to find content about operator development, and writing (and rewriting) the base of what was to become our QuestDB Cloud operator.

After many months of hard work, we've finally deployed this Kubernetes operator into our production Cloud. Building on top of our existing 'one-shot-with-rollback' provisioning model, the operator adds new functionality that allows us to perform complex operations like automatically recovering from node failure, and will also orchestrate upcoming QuestDB Enterprise features such as High Availability and Cold Storage.

If we've done my job correctly, you, as a current or potential end user will continue to enjoy the stability and easy management of your growing QuestDB deployments, without noticing a single difference. This is the story of how we accomplished this engineering feat and why we even did it in the first place.

Original System Architecture

To manage customer instances in our cloud, we use a queue-based system that is able to provision databases across different AWS accounts and regions using a centralized control plane known simply as "the provisioner."

Provisioner-Based infrastructure

When a user creates, modifies, or deletes a database in the QuestDB Cloud, an application backend server asynchronously sends a message that describes the change to a backend worker, which then appends that message to a Kafka log. Each message contains information about the target database (its unique identifier, resident cluster, and information about its config, runtime, and storage) as well as the specific set of operations that are to be performed.

These instructional messages get picked up by one of many provisioner workers, each of which subscribes to a particular Kafka log partition. Once a provisioner worker receives a message, it is decoded and its instructions are carried out inside the same process. Instructions vary based on the specific operation that needs to be performed. These range from simple tasks like an application-level restart, to more complex ones such as tearing down an underlying database's node if the user wants to pause an active instance to save costs on an unused resource.

Each high-level instruction is broken down into smaller, composable granular tasks. Thus, the provisioner coordinates resources at a relatively low level, explicitly managing k8s primitives like StatefulSets, Deployments, Ingresses, Services, and PersistentVolumes as well as AWS resources like EC2 Instances, Security Groups, Route53 Records, and EBS Volumes.

Provisioning progress is reported back to the application through a separate Kafka queue (we call it the "gossip" queue). Backend workers are listening to this queue for new messages, and update a customer database's status in our backend database when new information has been received.

Provisioner Workflow

Each granular operation also has a corresponding rollback procedure in case the provisioner experiences an error while running a set of commands. These rollbacks are designed to leave the target database's infrastructure in a consistent state, although it's important to note that this is not the desired state as intended by the end user's actions. Once an error has been encountered and the rollback executed, the backend will be notified about the original error through the gossip Kafka queue in order to surface any relevant information back to the end user. Our internal monitoring system will also trigger alerts on these errors so an on-call engineer can investigate the issue and kick off the appropriate remediation steps.

While this system has proven to be reliable over the past several months since we first launched our public cloud offering, the framework still leaves room for improvement. Much of our recent database development work around High Availability and Cold Storage requires adding more infrastructure components to our existing system. And adding new components to any distributed system tends to increase the system's overall error rate.

As we continue to add complexity to our infrastructure, there is a risk that the above rollback strategy won't be sufficient enough to recover from new classes of errors. We need a more responsive and dynamic provisioning system that can automatically respond to faults and take proactive remediation action, instead of triggering alerts and potentially waking up one of our globally-distributed engineers.

This is where a Kubernetes operator can pick up the slack and improve our existing infrastructure automation.

Introducing a Kubernetes Operator

Now that stateful workloads have started to mature in the Kubernetes ecosystem, practitioners are writing operators to automate the management of these workloads. Operators that handle full-lifecycle tasks like provisioning, snapshotting, migrating, and upgrading clustered database systems have started to become mainstream across the industry.

These operators include Custom Resource Definitions (CRDs) that define new types of Kubernetes API resources which describe how to manage the intricacies of each particular database system. Custom Resources (CRs) are then created from these CRDs that effectively define the expected state of a particular database resource. CRs are managed by operator controller deployments that orchestrate various Kubernetes primitives to migrate the cluster state to its desired state based on the CR manifests.

Operator Terminology

By writing our own Kubernetes operator, I believed, we could take advantage of this model by allowing the provisioner to only focus on higher-level tasks, while an operator handles the nitty-gritty details of managing each individual customer database. Since an operator is directly hooked in to the Kubernetes API server through Resource Watches, it can immediately react to changes in cluster state and constantly reconcile cluster resources to achieve the desired state described by a Custom Resource spec. This allows us to automate even more of our infrastructure management, since the control plane is effectively running all of the time, instead of only during explicit provisioning actions.

With an operator deployed in one of our clusters, we can now interact with a customer database by executing API calls and CRUD operations against a single resource, a new Custom Resource Definition that represents an entire QuestDB Cloud deployment. This CRD allows us to maintain a central Kubernetes object that represents the canonical version of the entire state of a customer's QuestDB database deployment in our cluster. It includes fields like the database version, instance type, volume size, server config, and the underlying node image, as well as key pieces of status like a node's IP address and DNS record information. Based on these spec field values, as well as changes to them, the operator performs a continuous reconciliation of all the relevant Kubernetes and AWS primitives to match the expected state of the higher-level QuestDB construct.

New Architecture

This leads us to our new architecture:

Operator-Based Architecture

While this diagram resembles the old one, there is a key difference here; a QuestDB operator instance is now running inside of each cluster! Instead of the provisioner being responsible for all of the low-level Kubernetes and AWS building blocks, it is now only responsible for modifying a single object: a QuestDB Custom Resource. Any modifications to the state of a QuestDB deployment, large or small, can be made by changing a single manifest that describes the desired state of the entire deployment.

This solution still uses the provisioner, but in a much more limited capacity than before. The provisioner continues to act as the communication link between the application and each tenant cluster, and it is still responsible for coordinating high-level operations. But, it can now delegate low-level database management responsibilities to the operator's constantly-running reconciliation loops.

Operator Benefits


Since the operator model is eventually-consistent, we no longer need to rely on rollbacks in the face of errors. Instead, if the operator encounters an error in its reconciliation loop, it re-attempts that reconciliation at a later time, using an exponential backoff by default.

The operator is registered to Resource Watches for all QuestDBs in the cluster, as well as for their subcomponents. So, a change in any of these components, or the QuestDB spec itself, will trigger a reconciliation loop inside the operator. If a component is accidentally mutated or experiences some state drift, the operator will be immediately notified of this change and automatically attempt to bring the rest of the infrastructure to its desired state.

This property is incredibly useful to us, since we provision a dedicated node for each database and use a combination of taints and NodeSelectors to ensure that all of a deployment's Pods are running on this single node. Due to these design choices, we are now exposed to the risk of a node hardware failure that renders it inaccessible. Typical Kubernetes recovery patterns can not save us.

So instead of using an alerting-first remediation paradigm, where on-call engineers would follow a runbook after receiving an alert that a database is down, the operator allows us to write custom node failover logic that is triggered as soon as the cluster is aware of an unresponsive node. Now, our engineers can sleep soundly through the night while the operator automatically performs the remediation steps that they would previously be responsible for.

Simpler Provisioning

Instead of having to coordinate tens of individual objects in a typical operation, the provisioner now only has to modify a single Kubernetes object while executing higher level instructions. This dramatically reduces the code complexity inside of the provisioner codebase and makes it far easier for us to write unit and integration tests. It is also easier for on-call engineers to quickly diagnose and solve issues with customer databases, since all of the relevant information about a specific database is contained inside of a single Kubernetes spec manifest, instead of spread across various resource types inside each namespace. Although, as expressed in the previous point, hopefully there will be fewer problems for our on-call engineers to solve in the first place!

Easier Upgrades

The 15-week Kubernetes release cadence can be a burden for smaller infrastructure teams to keep on top of. This relatively rapid schedule, combined with the short lifetime of each release, means that it is critical for organisations to keep their clusters up-to-date. The importance of this is magnified if you're not running your own control plane, since vendors tend to drop support for old k8s versions fairly quickly.

EKS End of Life Schedule

Since we're running each database on its own node, and there are only two of us to manage the entire QuestDB Cloud infrastructure, we could easily spend most of our time just upgrading customer database nodes to new Kubernetes versions. Instead, our operator now allows us to automatically perform a near-zero-downtime node upgrade with a single field change on our CRD.

Once the operator detects a change in a database's underlying node image, it will handle all of the orchestration around the upgrade, including keeping the customer database online for as long as possible and cleaning up stale resources once the upgrade is complete. With this automation in place, we can now perform partial upgrades against subsets of our infrastructure to test new versions before rolling them out to the entire cluster, and also seamlessly roll back to an older node version if required.

Control Plane Locality

By deploying an operator-per-cluster, we can improve the time it takes for provisioning operations to complete by avoiding most cross-region traffic that takes place from the provisioner to remote tenant clusters. We only need to make a few cross-region API calls to kickstart the provisioning process by performing a CRUD operation on a QuestDB spec, and the local cluster operator will handle the rest. This improves our API call network latency and reliability, reducing the number of retries for any given operation as well as the overall database provisioning time.

Resource Coordination

Now that we have a single Kubernetes resource to represent an entire QuestDB deployment, we can use this resource as a primitive to build even larger abstractions. For example, now we can easily create a massive (but temporary) instance to crunch large amounts of data, save that data to a PersistentVolume in the cluster, then spin up another smaller database to act as the query interface. Due to the inherent composability of Kubernetes resources, the possibilities with a QuestDB Custom Resource are endless!

The DevOps Stuff

Testing the Operator

Before deploying such a significant piece of software in our stack, I wanted to be as confident as possible in its behavior and runtime characteristics before letting it run wild in our clusters. So we wrote and ran a large series of unit and integration tests before we felt confident enough to deploy the new infrastructure to development, and eventually to production.

Unit tests were written against an in-memory Kubernetes API server using the controller-runtime/pkg/envtest library. Envtest allowed us to iterate quickly since we could run tests against a fresh API cluster that started up in around 5 seconds instead of having to spin up a new cluster every time we wanted to run a test suite. Even existing micro-cluster tools like Kind could not get us that level of performance. Since envtest is also not packaged with any controllers, we could also set our test cluster to a specific state and be sure that this state would not be modified unless we explicitly did so in our test code. This allowed us to fully test specific edge-cases without having to worry about control plane-level controllers modifying various objects out from underneath us.

But unit testing is not enough, especially since many of the primitives that we are manipulating are fairly high-level abstractions in and of themselves. So we also spun up a test EKS cluster to run live tests against, built with the same manifests as our development and production environments. This cluster allowed us run tests using live AWS and K8s APIs, and was integral when testing features like node recovery and upgrades.

We were also able to leverage Ginkgo's parallel testing runtime to run our integration tests on multiple concurrent processes. This provided multiple benefits: we could run our entire integration test suite in under 10 minutes and also reuse the same suite to load test the operator in a production-like environment. Using these tests, we were able to identify hot spots in the code that needed further optimization and experimented with ways to save API calls to ease the load on our own Kubernetes API server while also staying under various AWS rate limits. It was only after running these tests over and over again that I felt confident enough to deploy the operator to our dev and prod clusters.


Since we built our operator using the Kubebuilder framework, most standard monitoring tasks were handled for us out-of-the-box. Our operator automatically exposes a rich set of Prometheus metrics that measure reconciliation performance, the number of k8s API calls, workqueue statistics, and memory-related metrics. We we were able to ingest these metrics into pre-built dashboards by leveraging the grafana/v1-alpha plugin, which scaffolds two Grafana dashboards to monitor Operator resource usage and performance. All we had to do was add these to our existing Grafana manifests and we were good to go!

Migrating to the New Paradigm

No article about a large infrastructure change would be complete without a discussion about the migration strategy from old to the new. In our case, we designed the operator to be a drop-in-replacement for the database instances managed by the provisioner. This involved many tedious rounds of diffing yaml manifests to ensure that the resources coordinated by the operator would match the ones that were already in our cluster.

Once this resource parity was reached, we utilized Kubernetes owner-dependent relationships to create an Owner Reference on each sub-resource that pointed to the new QuestDB Custom Resource. Part of the reconciliation loop involves ensuring that these ownership references are in place, and if not, are created automatically. This way, the operator can seamlessly "inherit" legacy resources through its main reconciliation codepath.

We were able to roll this out incrementally due to the guarantee that the operator cannot make any changes to resources that are not owned by a QuestDB CR. Because of this property, we could create a single QuestDB CR and monitor the operator's behavior on only the cluster resources associated with that database. Once everything behaved as expected, we started to roll out additional Custom Resources. This could be easily controlled on the provisioner side; by checking for the existence of a QuestDB CR for a given database. If the CR existed, then we could be sure that we were dealing with an operator-managed instance, otherwise the provisioner would behave as it did before the operator existed.


I'm extremely proud of the hard work that we've put into this project. Starting from an empty git repo, it's been a long journey to get here. There have been several times over the past few months when I questioned if all of this work was even worth the trouble, especially since we already had a provisioning system that was battle-tested in production. But with the support of my colleagues, I powered through to the end. And I can definitely say that it's been worth it, as we've already seen immediate benefits of moving to this new paradigm!

Using our QuestDB CR as a building block has paved the way for new features like adding a large-format bulk CSV upload with our SQL COPY command. The new node upgrade process will save us countless hours with every new k8s release. And even though we haven't experienced a hardware failure yet, I'm confident that our new operator will seamlessly handle that situation as well, without paging up an on-call engineer. Especially since we are a small team, it is critical for us to use automation as a force-multiplier that assists us in managing our Cloud infrastructure, and a Kubernetes operator provides us with next-level automation that was previously unattainable.

Originally posted on the QuestDB Blog

K8s Operator Prometheus Metrics Viewer

As you hopefully know from reading some of my recent articles, I really enjoy writing Kubernetes operators! I've written a bit about them on this blog, and also just recently presented a talk about how to build them at the inaugural FOSSY conference in Portland, Oregon. So here goes another operator-related article, although this one is about one of the later stages of operator development: performance tuning.

Since I've been working on an operator that includes multiple controllers, each with 4 reconcilers running concurrently that make API calls to resources outside of the cluster, I wanted to start profiling my reconciliation loop performance to ensure that I could handle real-world throughput requirements.

Prometheus Metrics

Kubebuilder offers the ability to export operator-specific Prometheus metrics as part of its default scaffolding. This provides a great way to profile and monitor your operator performance under both testing and live conditions.

Some of these metrics (many on a per-controller basis) include:

  • A histogram of reconcile times
  • Number of active workers
  • Workqueue depth
  • Total reconcile time
  • Total reconcile errors
  • API server request method & response counts
  • Process memory usage & GC performance

I wanted a way to monitor these metrics for controllers that are under development on my local machine. This means that they are running as processes outside of any cluster context, which makes it difficult to scrape their exposed metrics using a standard prometheus/grafana setup.


So I thought, why not craft a little GUI to display this information? Inspired by the absolutely incredible k9s project, I decided to make a terminal-driven GUI using the tview library.

Since I'm not (yet) storing this information for further analysis, I decided to only display the latest scraped data point for each metric. But I also didn't want to implement my own prometheus metric parser to do this, so I imported pieces of the prometheus scrape library itself to handle the metric parsing. All I had to do was implement a few interfaces for storing and querying my metrics to interop with the scrape library.

Prometheus in-memory, transient storage

The prometheus storage and query interfaces are relatively simple, and it helps that we actually don't need to implement all of their methods!


The underlying storage mechanism of my InMemoryMetricStorage class is a simple map along with a mutex for locking it during multithreaded IO. In this map, we are only storing the latest value for each metric, so there's no problem overwriting a key's value if it already exists. And we also don't need to worry about out-of-order writes or any other time-series database problems.

type InMemoryAppender struct {
	data map[uint64]DataPoint
	mu   *sync.Mutex

The DataPoint struct maps directly to a prometheus metric's structure. If you've worked with prometheus metrics before, this should look pretty familiar to you.

type DataPoint struct {
	Labels    labels.Labels
	Timestamp int64
	Value     float64

To populate each DataPoint's uint64 key in the map, we can simply use the prometheus builtin labels.Hash() function to generate a unique key for each DataPoint, without having to do any extra work on our end.

To demonstrate, here's an example of a prometheus metric:

# HELP http_requests_total Total number of http api requests
# TYPE http_requests_total counter
http_requests_total{api="add_product"} 4633433

And how it would be represented by the DataPoint struct:

d := DataPoint{
    Labels: []Label{
        {Name: "api", Value: "add_product"},
    Value: 4633433,
    Timestamp: time.Now(),

Now that we have our data model, we need a way to store DataPoints for further retrieval.


Here's the interface of the storage backend appender:

type Appender interface {
	Append(ref SeriesRef, l labels.Labels, t int64, v float64) (SeriesRef, error)
	Commit() error
	Rollback() error


Because we're building a simple in-memory tool (with no persistence or availability guarantees), we can ignore the Commit() and Rollback() methods (by turning them into no-ops). Furthermore, we can avoid implementing the bottom three interfaces, since the metrics that are exposed by kubebuilder are not exemplars, metadata, or histograms (the framework actually uses gauges to represent the histogram values, more on this below!). So this only leaves the Append() function to implement, which just writes to the InMemoryAppender's underlying map storage in a threadsafe manner.

func (a *InMemoryAppender) Append(ref storage.SeriesRef, l labels.Labels, t int64, v float64) (storage.SeriesRef, error) {
	defer a.mu.Unlock()
	a.data[l.Hash()] = DataPoint{Labels: l, Timestamp: t, Value: v}
	return ref, nil


The querier implementation is also fairly straightforward. We just need to implement a single Query method against our datastore to extract metrics from our store.

My solution is far from an optimized inner-loop; it has awful exponential performance in the worst case. But for looping through a few metrics at a rate of at most once-per-second, I'm not overly concerned with the time-complexity of this function.

func (a *InMemoryAppender) Query(metric string, l labels.Labels) []DataPoint {
	defer a.mu.Unlock()

	dataToReturn := []DataPoint{}

	for _, d := range a.data {
		if d.Labels.Get("__name__") != metric {

		var isMatch bool = true
		for _, label := range l {
			if d.Labels.Get(label.Name) != label.Value {
				isMatch = false

		if isMatch {
			dataToReturn = append(dataToReturn, d)


	return dataToReturn

Histogram implementation

Since the controller reconcile time histogram data is stored in prometheus gauges, I did need to write some additional code to transform these into a workable schema to actually generate a histogram. To aid in the construction of the histogram buckets, I created 2 structs, one to represent the histogram itself, and the other to represent each of its buckets.

type HistogramData struct {
	buckets []Bucket
	curIdx  int

type Bucket struct {
	Label string
	Value int

For each controller, we can run a query against our storage backend for the workqueue_queue_duration_seconds_bucket metric with the name=<controller-name> label. This will return all histogram buckets for a specific controller, each with a separate label (le) that denotes the bucket's limit. We can iterate through these metrics to create Bucket objects, append them to the HistogramData.buckets slice, and eventually sort them before rendering the histogram to keep the display consistent and in the correct order.

The curIdx field on the HistogramData struct is only used internally when rendering the histogram, to keep track of the current index of the buckets slice that we're on. This way, we can consume buckets using a for loop and exit when we return the final bucket. It's a bit clunky, but it works!


After all of this hacking, I ended up with something that looks like this:


It's far from perfect; since I don't manipulate the histogram values (yet) or have any display scrolling, it's very likely that the histogram will spill off the right of the screen. The UX can also be improved, since you can only switch the controller that is being displayed by pressing the Up and Down buttons.

But it's been a fantastic tool for me when debugging slow reconciles due to API rate limiting, and has also highlighted errors for me when I miss them in the logs. Give it a whirl and let me know what you think!

Link to the Github: https://github.com/sklarsa/operator-prom-metrics-viewer