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

feat(scaler): Accounts for other providers running the lattice #119

Merged

Conversation

thomastaylor312
Copy link
Contributor

This PR contains a couple small changes I discovered while manually testing, but the large change is around the scaler algorithm for providers. Now a provider scaler will consider its job done if any provider matching what it is expecting to be running.

Closes #106

This PR contains a couple small changes I discovered while manually testing,
but the large change is around the scaler algorithm for providers. Now a
provider scaler will consider its job done if _any_ provider matching what
it is expecting to be running.

Closes wasmCloud#106

Signed-off-by: Taylor Thomas <taylor@cosmonic.com>
@@ -156,13 +156,13 @@ impl<S: ReadStore + Send + Sync + Clone> Scaler for ActorSpreadScaler<S> {
},
)
})
.collect::<Vec<&WadmActorInstance>>()
.count()
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Oo nice

.sum()
})
.unwrap_or(0);
trace!(current = %current_count, expected = %count, "Calculated running actors, reconciling with expected count");
trace!(current = %current_count, expected = %count, host_id = ?first_host.id, "Calculated running actors, reconciling with expected count");
// TODO: Figure out why a new deploy doesn't scale things down properly
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is this an Eventually ™️ thing or should we have an issue filed to track?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I was gonna file and forgot. Will file one now

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

See #120

Copy link
Contributor Author

@thomastaylor312 thomastaylor312 May 31, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Oh whoops, wrong thing. But I was going to look at this in e2e. I did need to file that issue anyway

@thomastaylor312 thomastaylor312 merged commit 7cee184 into wasmCloud:main May 31, 2023
@thomastaylor312 thomastaylor312 deleted the feat/check_provider_existence branch May 31, 2023 22:18
@brooksmtownsend brooksmtownsend mentioned this pull request Sep 4, 2023
10 tasks
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.

Provider scaler should only check if a provider exists when matching scale requirements
2 participants