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

Version 2.4.0 tries to downscale storage back to original value #117

Open
adillonjc opened this issue Apr 19, 2024 · 0 comments
Open

Version 2.4.0 tries to downscale storage back to original value #117

adillonjc opened this issue Apr 19, 2024 · 0 comments
Labels
bug 🐛 An issue with the system

Comments

@adillonjc
Copy link

Describe the Bug

We have a cluster created with

  broker_volume_size            = 1000
...
  storage_autoscaling_max_capacity = 4000

and storage has autoscaled to 2662.

When upgrading to module version 2.4.0, the Terraform plan includes the following:

broker_node_group_info {
  storage_info {
    ebs_storage_info {
      volume_size : 2662 -> 1000
    }
}

This looks like it will downscale the storage back to the original size. When upgrading to version 2.3.1 we don't see this behavior.

Expected Behavior

TF plan should not include a change to volume_size just by upgrading module version.

Steps to Reproduce

I haven't attempted to reproduce it outside of our existing cluster, but I think this would work: Using a module version 2.3.1 or less, use storage_autoscaling_max_capacity greater than the broker_volume_size, create the cluster, then get storage to autoscale. Then upgrade the module to 2.4.0.

Screenshots

No response

Environment

  • Terraform v1.3.2 (Terraform Cloud)
  • upgrading module version from 0.8.4 to 2.4.0 causes the issue, but upgrading from 0.8.4 to 2.3.1 doesn't

Additional Context

No response

@adillonjc adillonjc added the bug 🐛 An issue with the system label Apr 19, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug 🐛 An issue with the system
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant