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

Allow allocating to non-active hosts with dynamic provisioning #8743

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 12, 2019

Conversation

freva
Copy link
Member

@freva freva commented Mar 11, 2019

With dynamic provisioning, we can allocate a container to a host that already has node(s) by this tenant as long as that host is active. Because we prepare for each ClusterSpec separately, we will end up provisioning new hosts just for the logserver container, since any host just provisioned for a container/content node is still in provisioned. This PR relaxes that requirement:
For non-dynamic provisioning: No change (host must still be active)
For dynamic provisioning: Host can be any of provisioned, ready or active.

Not sure if this is possible, but ideally we should make sure that logserver is prepared last since it is most likely to be able to fit on any previously provisioned host.

@freva freva requested a review from hmusum March 11, 2019 15:52
Copy link
Member

@hmusum hmusum left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM.

FWIW, looks like AdminModel (which creates logserver) depends on ContainerModel and Content depends on both AdminModel and ContainerModel. So logserver will be prepared after container clusters, but before content clusters.

@hmusum hmusum changed the title Allow allocating to non-active hosts with dynamic provisioning Allow allocating to non-active hosts with dynamic provisioning Mar 12, 2019
@hmusum hmusum merged commit 4062663 into master Mar 12, 2019
@hmusum hmusum deleted the freva/conservative-dynamic-provisioning branch March 12, 2019 07:48
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.

2 participants