You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
That runs on a cluster with a single instance. In other words: scale count == 1.
No volumes
No special scaling settings in the fly.toml nor by calling fly scale .... Everything is at stock settings.
These preconditions are trivially satisfied by fly launching any of the example apps in the Fly documentation.
For instance, with the Rails example app.
When
When running fly scale memory some_other_amount (such as fly scale memory 512)
Expected behaviour
A 'canary'-style deploy is done. That is:
A new VM instance is started in the background.
Fly waits until it is fully started and its health checks are OK
Only now is the current VM instance stopped and traffic redirected to the new VM instance.
Actual behaviour
An 'immediate'-style deploy is done. That is:
The current VM instance is stopped immediately, before the new VM instance is operational.
This causes a period of downtime. (The downtime takes roughly as long as it takes the new VM instance to boot and pass its health checks.)
After @davissp14 confirmed that this is not intended behaviour in the Forum topic about this problem, formalizing it in an issue seemed like the right thing to do. I hope this aligns with Fly's dev guidelines 😊 .
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Given
scale count == 1
.fly.toml
nor by callingfly scale ...
. Everything is at stock settings.These preconditions are trivially satisfied by
fly launch
ing any of the example apps in the Fly documentation.For instance, with the Rails example app.
When
When running
fly scale memory some_other_amount
(such asfly scale memory 512
)Expected behaviour
A 'canary'-style deploy is done. That is:
Actual behaviour
An 'immediate'-style deploy is done. That is:
After @davissp14 confirmed that this is not intended behaviour in the Forum topic about this problem, formalizing it in an issue seemed like the right thing to do. I hope this aligns with Fly's dev guidelines 😊 .
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: