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

[Feature]: Operator can push apps with larger resource requirements by default #2682

Closed
4 tasks done
acosta11 opened this issue Jul 12, 2023 · 2 comments
Closed
4 tasks done
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@acosta11
Copy link
Member

acosta11 commented Jul 12, 2023

Blockers/Dependencies

No response

Background

As a platform operator
I want app developers to be able to push apps with larger resource requirements by default
So that I do not have to configure the platform to handle apps that push successfully on cf for vms

Acceptance Criteria

GIVEN a default installation of korifi
WHEN I push an app with staging resource requirements like the java spring app
THEN I the push succeeds

Dev Notes

We recently added some configuration around app resource limits that caused app pushes to start failing due to low default values. Instead, limits in cf for vms were enforced at the space and org level with quotas, so we would like to instead use something like a kubernetes resource request to implement the appropriate behavior. At the very least, we may just roll back the limit configuration to unblock app pushes.

See related #2663 and #2673. Also see related slack thread: https://cloudfoundry.slack.com/archives/C0297673ASK/p1689178733777159.

Tasks

@gcapizzi gcapizzi added this to the v0.8 milestone Jul 13, 2023
@georgethebeatle
Copy link
Member

This change resulted in some korifi builds not being able to be scheduled, because resource requests default to the value of resource limits and it seems that 1G memory request is too big for our clusters. We have therefore reduced the test parallelism a bit to fix CI. Can you please revert this commit once you have a proper fix for this problem. Thanks!

@acosta11
Copy link
Member Author

Now that the fix is merged into main, reverting the node configuration and re-flying the pipeline.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Archived in project
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants