-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 27
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
feat(scaler): Accounts for other providers running the lattice #119
Conversation
22d11d1
to
97377fe
Compare
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>
97377fe
to
193f399
Compare
@@ -156,13 +156,13 @@ impl<S: ReadStore + Send + Sync + Clone> Scaler for ActorSpreadScaler<S> { | |||
}, | |||
) | |||
}) | |||
.collect::<Vec<&WadmActorInstance>>() | |||
.count() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
See #120
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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
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