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

Correct placement of replicaCount settings in site customizations tem… #2374

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: release/1.6
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

andrewpbarry
Copy link

Summary and Scope

fix a bug in the customizations.yaml template in which the rsyslog-aggregator and rsyslog-aggregator-udp sections include a replicaCount setting, which should be an argument to the the cray-services template, but is not. As written changing this value does not change the number of pods, as intended. Moving it to a argument value of cray-services corrects the problem. The default setting of 3 pods works well for modestly sized systems, but for large customer systems with thousands of compute nodes, having a way to increase the number of pods is required.

Summarize what has changed. Explain why this PR is necessary. What is impacted? Is this a new feature, critical bug fix, etc?

Is this change backwards incompatible, backwards compatible, or a backwards compatible bugfix?

Issues and Related PRs

List and characterize relationship to Jira/Github issues and other pull requests. Be sure to list dependencies.

  • Resolves casmsmf-7400
  • Change may also be needed in CSM-1.4 - Not clear how badly the customer needs this fixed in the template, and can just update the site-local copy.

Testing

Tested on:

Tested initially on Alvarez (Nersc TDS system), then on rocket.

Test description:

Set the corrected syntax in the customizations.yaml file, then ran the SMA installer, observing that the number of pods had been updated to the intended value.

  • Were the install/upgrade-based validation checks/tests run (goss tests/install-validation doc)? NO
  • Were continuous integration tests run? If not, why? - YES
  • Was upgrade tested? If not, why? - NO, only the template changes, so would do nothing.
  • Was downgrade tested? If not, why? - NO, only the template changes, so would do nothing.
  • Were new tests (or test issues/Jiras) created for this change? - NO

Risks and Mitigations

No known risks.

Pull Request Checklist

  • [n/a] Version number(s) incremented, if applicable
  • [n/a] Copyrights updated
  • License file intact
  • Target branch correct
  • CHANGELOG.md updated
  • Testing is appropriate and complete, if applicable
  • [n/a] HPC Product Announcement prepared, if applicable

@andrewpbarry andrewpbarry requested a review from a team as a code owner June 14, 2023 21:02
@andrewpbarry
Copy link
Author

Can I get a review of this mod please. It's pretty trivial - but it will hopefully avoid confusion on the customer's part in future.

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.

3 participants