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

Made compute zone name generic #1431

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Dec 31, 2019
Merged

Conversation

metonymic-smokey
Copy link
Contributor

Refers to issue #1296
Changed file to make compute zone reference generic and added a note about regional clusters.

@metonymic-smokey
Copy link
Contributor Author

@consideRatio here's the PR.
I've tried to follow the first part of #1296 while adding to the docs.
Should I also add a note about the second part ?

Thanks!

@metonymic-smokey
Copy link
Contributor Author

@consideRatio any idea why it's not passing the Travis CI check?

@metonymic-smokey
Copy link
Contributor Author

@willingc made the changes you suggested! Thanks a lot!

Copy link
Member

@consideRatio consideRatio left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sorry for slow feedback about this PR! If we introduce the concept of regional clusters, I'd like to see some additional understanding presented as well.

  • If you create a regional cluster, you will by default create nodes in at least three zones.
  • If you create a regional cluster, you will always get High Availability (HA) on your k8s api-server for free. This means that kubectl get pods for example should keep working no matter if an individual api-server is being upgraded which they automatically are sometimes.
  • If you want to reap the benefit of a HA k8s api-server while not tripling the amount of nodes, you can limit your own servers to one single zone by using the --node-locations flag and specifying a specific zone, such as us-central1-a:

@metonymic-smokey
Copy link
Contributor Author

@consideRatio thanks for the review!
Apologies for the very brief PR.
I shall add these points too!

@metonymic-smokey
Copy link
Contributor Author

@consideRatio sorry for the delay!
Added the points you had asked for, referring to the official GCP docs and blog.
Any changes I need to make to this?
Thanks!

@metonymic-smokey
Copy link
Contributor Author

@willingc @consideRatio would love it if you could review this PR!
Thanks!

Copy link
Member

@consideRatio consideRatio left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for your work on this ❤️! I made some suggestions, if they look good to you it all LGTM!

doc/source/google/step-zero-gcp.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
doc/source/google/step-zero-gcp.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
doc/source/google/step-zero-gcp.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
metonymic-smokey and others added 2 commits December 31, 2019 22:09
Co-Authored-By: Erik Sundell <erik.i.sundell@gmail.com>
@metonymic-smokey
Copy link
Contributor Author

@consideRatio the changes look good. Added the changes with a couple of minor fixes.

@consideRatio consideRatio merged commit e6a53fb into jupyterhub:master Dec 31, 2019
@consideRatio
Copy link
Member

Thank you for this thorough work @metonymic-smokey! ❤️ 🎉

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants