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

Allow to evaluate cost consequences of different scaling decisions #46

Open
jonnor opened this Issue Nov 18, 2015 · 3 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
1 participant
@jonnor
Copy link
Member

jonnor commented Nov 18, 2015

For a particular config, or comparing two configs, what are the expected effects in terms of costs.
Should be seen in relationship with #45 (analyzing perf on real data).

Also interesting for evaluating code changes, like #33.

@jonnor jonnor added the enhancement label Nov 18, 2015

@jonnor jonnor added this to the 0.2 milestone Nov 18, 2015

@jonnor

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

jonnor commented Dec 17, 2015

Some (experimental) code in ./src/analysis.coffee

@jonnor

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

jonnor commented Mar 15, 2016

Maybe the default usage could be to to show estimated cost, compared with the currently active config? At the end should just be the grand total, with +- difference (and %). There should also be a similar breakdown per-role, so one can evaluate where differences come from.

Significant differences should possibly be highlighted with a warning color yellow/orange.

When storing scaling config in git, one can use git show to get alternative versions: git show HEAD~4:autoscale.guv.yaml

@jonnor

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

jonnor commented Mar 15, 2016

One might also want to have validation rules, that says one cannot go above a certain level in costs.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment