PV Resizing: Give precedance to usage percentage #1112
Conversation
| @@ -270,11 +270,11 @@ func TestPersistentVolumeAdjuster_calculateProposedVolumeSize(t *testing.T) { | |||
| actualCapacity: resource.MustParse("200"), | |||
| requestedCapacity: resource.MustParse("20"), | |||
| }, | |||
| wantProposedSize: resource.MustParse("200"), | |||
| wantProposedSize: resource.MustParse("106"), | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see that 103% is desired but wantProposedSize: "106", is this a typo?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, a typo and a logic flaw :) Good catch
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ohh now that I realized, this is not a logic issue. 106 is the correct value, the reference for usage percentage is the actual volume size which is 200 in this case, which makes the 3% = 6Gi buffer. We cannot use requested size as a reference point as it could differ from actual capacity.
| reason = migapi.VolumeAdjustmentCapacityMismatch | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if volumeSizeWithThreshold.Cmp(maxSize) == 1 { | ||
| maxSize = volumeSizeWithThreshold | ||
| reason = migapi.VolumeAdjustmentUsageExceeded | ||
| if usagePercentage+int64(pva.getVolumeUsagePercentageThreshold()) > 100 { | ||
| reason = migapi.VolumeAdjustmentUsageExceeded |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Question: do we let users know that we are planning to downsize their volumes from the provisioned capacity?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@djwhatle Good point. No we do not.
|
Nomore being worked on due to conflicting priorities, I will reopen this when I have a full fix ready. |
Fixes #1074