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

Introduce storage tier variable set to tier-1 by default #143

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 9, 2024

Conversation

kishen-v
Copy link
Contributor

@kishen-v kishen-v commented May 8, 2024

Observed that the storage-tier used in the periodic jobs is tier-3, which compromises on IO.
Setting the same to tier1 for improved performance.

Validated the changes with an end-to-end test.

  + resource "ibm_pi_instance" "pvminstance" {
...
      + pi_storage_type                = "tier1"
      + pi_sys_type                    = "s922"
...

@ppc64le-cloud-bot ppc64le-cloud-bot added the size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files. label May 8, 2024
@kishen-v
Copy link
Contributor Author

kishen-v commented May 8, 2024

cc: @Rajalakshmi-Girish

@Rajalakshmi-Girish
Copy link
Contributor

@kishen-v I hope this won't change the results for jobs where performance doesn't matter.

@mkumatag, do you think we might need a flag for this?

@kishen-v
Copy link
Contributor Author

kishen-v commented May 8, 2024

Hi @Rajalakshmi-Girish, there should be no impact imo.
In fact, it seems that the jobs which were earlier running with a Tier-1 volume are now deployed with Tier-3, this change should get things back running with a Tier-1 disk, as earlier.

@Rajalakshmi-Girish
Copy link
Contributor

In fact, it seems that the jobs which were earlier running with a Tier-1 volume are now deployed with Tier-3, this change should get things back running with a Tier-1 disk, as earlier.

Yes could see some changes a few months back to default to tier3 IBM-Cloud/terraform-provider-ibm#5050

@mkumatag
Copy link
Member

mkumatag commented May 8, 2024

@kishen-v I hope this won't change the results for jobs where performance doesn't matter.

@mkumatag, do you think we might need a flag for this?

Lets not add any flags at the moment, lets use this default one for now.

Copy link
Contributor

@Rajalakshmi-Girish Rajalakshmi-Girish left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/lgtm

@ppc64le-cloud-bot ppc64le-cloud-bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label May 9, 2024
Copy link
Member

@mkumatag mkumatag left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/lgtm

@ppc64le-cloud-bot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: kishen-v, mkumatag, Rajalakshmi-Girish

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@ppc64le-cloud-bot ppc64le-cloud-bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label May 9, 2024
@ppc64le-cloud-bot ppc64le-cloud-bot merged commit 7c25f12 into ppc64le-cloud:master May 9, 2024
3 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants