-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 247
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
✨ Enable concurrency in BMO controllers through cmdLine flags #1247
Conversation
Opening a new PR since while fixing #1235 the branch got corrupted while fixing rebasing. |
Comments on previous PR |
I'll put @zaneb's latest comment here in writing as well to keep the conversation going: "I'm not opposed to changing the numbers, but I'd expect the new ones to be at least as "properly explained" as the previous ones were in #905. Scaling by the number of vcpus so that we don't use proportionally more resources on small boxes made sense to me, but maybe there's a reason that's mistaken? (Certainly this was somewhat informed by tuning a lot of Python deployments, where the GIL makes it impossible to effectively utilise more threads than there are vcpus.) I also don't really care whether it is configured by an env var or CLI arg. If there's a standard way to do the latter, that would be ideal. However, I don't see any reason to break existing deployers who may be relying on the env var. (Also, having different concurrency values for each controller seem pointless to me, and can't ever be standardised.)" |
68059d0
to
b9b2fab
Compare
/test-ubuntu-integration-main |
@zaneb thanks for your review. IMO these numbers highly depend on the infrastructure the deployment would be running as well as resource consumption. Anyways, I dont want to do any simulation at this point since my goal is to only standardize this configuration through command line flags. I can still keep the number to 8 as you have done a simulation to support it. I think configuring it through controller flags is more standard but since you think this would break existing deploys, I have kept it as it is but added a check if the value is provided in the command line flag or not. PTAL again if it looks ok to you. |
/test-centos-e2e-integration-main |
b9b2fab
to
0c58464
Compare
/test-centos-e2e-integration-main |
/test-ubuntu-integration-main |
/test-centos-e2e-integration-main |
f8802b5
to
15456a8
Compare
35bd947
to
5e256ab
Compare
/test-ubuntu-integration-main |
@zaneb lets decide the fate of this PR, I have rebased it multiple times now. |
5e256ab
to
63d5cd7
Compare
923fcc7
to
d6e1ef6
Compare
/test-centos-e2e-integration-main |
/test-ubuntu-integration-main |
1 similar comment
/test-ubuntu-integration-main |
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.
Happy with this. Thanks Kashif!
/approve
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: zaneb The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
d6e1ef6
to
4f1e59b
Compare
/test-ubuntu-integration-main |
/lgtm |
@Rozzii: adding LGTM is restricted to approvers and reviewers in OWNERS files. In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
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.
/lgtm
This PR adds concurrency in controllers through command line flags