feat(docs): Example Gateway terraform module for GCP #4011
Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
Performance Test ResultsTCP
UDP
|
This prevents us from backslack escape hell when trying to expose this script in different contexts. Needed as a pre-req to #4011
Terraform Cloud Plan Output |
|
refs #4029 |
jamilbk
changed the title
| source_ranges = ["0.0.0.0/0"] | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| resource "google_compute_instance_from_template" "gateway" { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should not promote deploying like this, what we really want is a regional instance group manager.
This way of deploying makes zero-downtime upgrades very hard to do (because all instances will be rebooted at the same time). So everything we have in ### Minimal downtime upgrades doesn't make any sense to do.
Additionally, we must use instance groups because that's the only way to roll out using health checks (so that instance health can be checked before taking down the next one). Once #2465 is closed we should go and update everything to start using them.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So everything we have in ### Minimal downtime upgrades doesn't make any sense to do.
If the input vars (token) aren't changed for an instance_template then terraform won't roll them over, at least based on my testing.
Once #2465 is closed we should go and update everything to start using them.
Does that mean that issue is a blocker for merging this?
This is meant to serve as a basic example for a customer -- I think it's worth having basic examples for users who don't need minimal downtime deploys and would rather have something simple to get up and running with quickly.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I updated this example with a Future improvements section that includes this and some customer feedback. Also removed the "Minimal downtime upgrades" section since that's not quite where we want to steer customers per your feedback.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If the input vars (token) aren't changed for an instance_template then terraform won't roll them over, at least based on my testing.
If we release a new version it will roll them over.
Does that mean that issue is a blocker for merging this?
Nope, we still can have zero-downtime deployment using the proper boot timeouts. It's just not as reliable as health checks.
This is meant to serve as a basic example for a customer -- I think it's worth having basic examples for users who don't need minimal downtime deploys and would rather have something simple to get up and running with quickly.
To use a regional instance group we only need to replace instance_from_template with another kind of resource so complexity-wise is about the same but the example will give a better way to deploy and manage replicated apps. Since it's already merged I can update the example later.
Co-authored-by: Andrew Dryga <andrew@dryga.com> Signed-off-by: Jamil <jamilbk@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Andrew Dryga <andrew@dryga.com> Signed-off-by: Jamil <jamilbk@users.noreply.github.com>
|
Customer verified it to work, merging to receive further input from customer |
Adds a working example of the simplest way to deploy Gateways to GCP that is also mostly cloud platform agnostic.
I avoided using COS and Docker for this because: