Granular max-in-flight updates #4124
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
sethboyles
force-pushed
the
granular_max_in_flight
branch
from
c7fc97b to
0e6bbc2
Compare
Samze
reviewed
Dec 4, 2024
Samze
reviewed
Dec 4, 2024
Samze
reviewed
Dec 4, 2024
Samze
reviewed
Dec 4, 2024
| healthy_instances.reject { |_, val| val[:state] == VCAP::CloudController::Diego::LRP_RUNNING && val[:routable] } | ||
| end | ||
|
|
||
| def routable_instances |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
thought/non-blocking routable_instances/healthy_instances/unhealthy_instances/reported_instances are all methods for the newly deploying process right? I wonder if theres any way we can be more explicit about that. As technically those functions could apply to the older web process. We could prefix with new or deploying or something....
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's a good point. I do worry the prefixes might hurt readability if every method is called deploying_abc_instances or something.
Maybe an alternative is to separate the scale down and scale up into separate actions entirely? I think their logic is fairly disentangled at this point.
sethboyles
force-pushed
the
granular_max_in_flight
branch
from
0e6bbc2 to
c100b1b
Compare
* Scale action now compares number of starting/running non-routable instances to max-in-flight, instead of waiting for all instances to become routable * Scale action does not continue scaling up when any instances are 'unhealthy' (e.g. 'crashed', 'down', etc) as it's difficult to determine if unhealthy instances belong to the 'max in flight' group * Number of desired nondeploying instances now recalculated each iteration instead of decrementing by 'max-in-flight' without checking if it's in a correct state. This mitigates bugs where deployment trains (continually creating new deployments before the previous had completed) could result in number app instances exceeding the max-in-flight limit.
sethboyles
force-pushed
the
granular_max_in_flight
branch
from
c100b1b to
3b62205
Compare
Samze
approved these changes
Dec 5, 2024
ari-wg-gitbot
added a commit
to cloudfoundry/capi-release
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 6, 2024
Changes in cloud_controller_ng:
- Granular max-in-flight updates
PR: cloudfoundry/cloud_controller_ng#4124
Author: Seth Boyles <seth.boyles@broadcom.com>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
See this thread for some of the issues this PR aims to solve: #4101 (comment)
I have reviewed the contributing guide
I have viewed, signed, and submitted the Contributor License Agreement
I have made this pull request to the
mainbranchI have run all the unit tests using
bundle exec rakeI have run CF Acceptance Tests
I have run BARAS