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

feat(servergroup): Allow users to opt-out of the target desired size check when verifying if the instances scaled up or down successfully #4649

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Feb 22, 2024

Conversation

ovidiupopa07
Copy link
Contributor

Some of our users prefer to use the actual instance size list to verify if everything was scaled up or down accordingly instead of relying on the target percentage. They noticed this is causing instability on their end

…check when verifying if the instances scaled up or down successfully

Some of our users prefer to use the actual instance size list to verify if everything was scaled up or down accordingly instead of relying on the target percentage. They noticed this is causing instability on their end
@ovidiupopa07 ovidiupopa07 marked this pull request as ready for review February 21, 2024 17:35
Copy link
Member

@jasonmcintosh jasonmcintosh left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Kinda want to figure out a better properties organization strategy, e.g. a config.sg.use-resize-server-group option. I'd personally prefer to have "resize-server-group" to also match the variable "config.sg.use-target-desired-size" option.

Other question: IS there a need to allow this PER operation. E.g. "context.get("useTargetGroupDesiredSize") to figure out which path to use?

@ovidiupopa07
Copy link
Contributor Author

ovidiupopa07 commented Feb 22, 2024

IS there a need to allow this PER operation. E.g. "context.get("useTargetGroupDesiredSize") to figure out which path to use?

I don't think there's a need to extract this to stage/operation level. This is just for the match capacity task to use real number of instances instead of relying on the percentage stuff

@ovidiupopa07
Copy link
Contributor Author

Kinda want to figure out a better properties organization strategy, e.g. a config.sg.use-resize-server-group option. I'd personally prefer to have "resize-server-group" to also match the variable "config.sg.use-target-desired-size" option.

Makes sense. What about server-group.resize.match-instances-size? I would keep the match-instances-size to ensure we are intentional about the behavior that can be enabled for the resize. (e.g. use the instances size to match which was the default behavior before #3785 was merged, instead of the target desired size )

@ovidiupopa07 ovidiupopa07 added the ready to merge Approved and ready for merge label Feb 22, 2024
@mergify mergify bot added the auto merged Merged automatically by a bot label Feb 22, 2024
@mergify mergify bot merged commit f5fa468 into spinnaker:master Feb 22, 2024
5 checks passed
@ovidiupopa07
Copy link
Contributor Author

@Mergifyio backport release-1.28.x

Copy link
Contributor

mergify bot commented Feb 22, 2024

backport release-1.28.x

✅ Backports have been created

mergify bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 22, 2024
…check when verifying if the instances scaled up or down successfully (#4649)

* feat(servergroup): Allow users to opt-out of the target desired size check when verifying if the instances scaled up or down successfully

Some of our users prefer to use the actual instance size list to verify if everything was scaled up or down accordingly instead of relying on the target percentage. They noticed this is causing instability on their end

* chore: Update copyright

* refactor: Introduce the ServerGroupProperties which will be used to define all server group related properties

(cherry picked from commit f5fa468)
@ovidiupopa07
Copy link
Contributor Author

ovidiupopa07 commented Feb 22, 2024

@Mergifyio backport release-1.33.x release-1.32.x release-1.31.x

Copy link
Contributor

mergify bot commented Feb 22, 2024

backport release-1.33.x release 1.32.x release-1.31.x

❌ No backport have been created

GitHub error: Branch not found

  • Backport to branch 1.32.x failed

GitHub error: Branch not found

mergify bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 22, 2024
…check when verifying if the instances scaled up or down successfully (#4649)

* feat(servergroup): Allow users to opt-out of the target desired size check when verifying if the instances scaled up or down successfully

Some of our users prefer to use the actual instance size list to verify if everything was scaled up or down accordingly instead of relying on the target percentage. They noticed this is causing instability on their end

* chore: Update copyright

* refactor: Introduce the ServerGroupProperties which will be used to define all server group related properties

(cherry picked from commit f5fa468)
mergify bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 22, 2024
…check when verifying if the instances scaled up or down successfully (#4649)

* feat(servergroup): Allow users to opt-out of the target desired size check when verifying if the instances scaled up or down successfully

Some of our users prefer to use the actual instance size list to verify if everything was scaled up or down accordingly instead of relying on the target percentage. They noticed this is causing instability on their end

* chore: Update copyright

* refactor: Introduce the ServerGroupProperties which will be used to define all server group related properties

(cherry picked from commit f5fa468)
mergify bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 22, 2024
…check when verifying if the instances scaled up or down successfully (#4649)

* feat(servergroup): Allow users to opt-out of the target desired size check when verifying if the instances scaled up or down successfully

Some of our users prefer to use the actual instance size list to verify if everything was scaled up or down accordingly instead of relying on the target percentage. They noticed this is causing instability on their end

* chore: Update copyright

* refactor: Introduce the ServerGroupProperties which will be used to define all server group related properties

(cherry picked from commit f5fa468)
mergify bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 22, 2024
…check when verifying if the instances scaled up or down successfully (#4649) (#4650)

* feat(servergroup): Allow users to opt-out of the target desired size check when verifying if the instances scaled up or down successfully

Some of our users prefer to use the actual instance size list to verify if everything was scaled up or down accordingly instead of relying on the target percentage. They noticed this is causing instability on their end

* chore: Update copyright

* refactor: Introduce the ServerGroupProperties which will be used to define all server group related properties

(cherry picked from commit f5fa468)

Co-authored-by: ovidiupopa07 <[email protected]>
mergify bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 11, 2024
…check when verifying if the instances scaled up or down successfully (#4649) (#4652)

* feat(servergroup): Allow users to opt-out of the target desired size check when verifying if the instances scaled up or down successfully

Some of our users prefer to use the actual instance size list to verify if everything was scaled up or down accordingly instead of relying on the target percentage. They noticed this is causing instability on their end

* chore: Update copyright

* refactor: Introduce the ServerGroupProperties which will be used to define all server group related properties

(cherry picked from commit f5fa468)

Co-authored-by: ovidiupopa07 <[email protected]>
mergify bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 11, 2024
…check when verifying if the instances scaled up or down successfully (#4649) (#4653)

* feat(servergroup): Allow users to opt-out of the target desired size check when verifying if the instances scaled up or down successfully

Some of our users prefer to use the actual instance size list to verify if everything was scaled up or down accordingly instead of relying on the target percentage. They noticed this is causing instability on their end

* chore: Update copyright

* refactor: Introduce the ServerGroupProperties which will be used to define all server group related properties

(cherry picked from commit f5fa468)

Co-authored-by: ovidiupopa07 <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Jason <[email protected]>
jasonmcintosh added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 11, 2024
…check when verifying if the instances scaled up or down successfully (#4649) (#4651)

* feat(servergroup): Allow users to opt-out of the target desired size check when verifying if the instances scaled up or down successfully

Some of our users prefer to use the actual instance size list to verify if everything was scaled up or down accordingly instead of relying on the target percentage. They noticed this is causing instability on their end

* chore: Update copyright

* refactor: Introduce the ServerGroupProperties which will be used to define all server group related properties

(cherry picked from commit f5fa468)

Co-authored-by: ovidiupopa07 <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Jason <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
auto merged Merged automatically by a bot ready to merge Approved and ready for merge target-release/1.34
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants