Add 'branch' input to specify commit for deploy scripts/configs. Commit
can't be passed to workflow as ref, and we need to pin configs to
specific commit for main/release deploys
Update deploy input descriptions to match GH interface
Extract deploy jobs from build_and_test.yml to deploy-dev and
deploy-prod workflows.
Add trigger to run this workflows after Neon is build and tested on main and
release branches.
This will allow us to redeploy/rollback/patch config without full
rebuild.
To fix `Error: The requested DurationSeconds exceeds the
MaxSessionDuration set for this role.`
Co-authored-by: Rory de Zoete <rdezoete@Rorys-Mac-Studio.fritz.box>
To fix errors such as:
`An error occurred (ImageAlreadyExistsException) when calling the
PutImage operation: Image with digest
'sha256:da6d8ad97d84e3aec4e6a240c3a35868b626692ee5d199cdd3fe45d29a8e54df'
and tag 'latest' already exists in the repository with name
'compute-node-v14' in registry with id '369495373322'`
Co-authored-by: Rory de Zoete <rdezoete@RorysMacStudio.fritz.box>
Co-authored-by: Rory de Zoete <rdezoete@Rorys-Mac-Studio.fritz.box>
The general idea is that the VM informant binary is added to the
vm-compute-node images only. `compute_tools` then will run whatever's at
`/bin/vm-informant`, if the path exists.
When number of github actions workers is changed, some jobs get killed.
When helm if killed during the upgrade, release stuck in pending-upgrade
state. --atomic should initiate automatic rollback in this case.
## Describe your changes
Added a PR template
## Issue ticket number and link
#3162
## Checklist before requesting a review
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my code
- [ ] If it is a core feature, I have added thorough tests.
- [ ] Do we need to implement analytics? if so did you add the relevant
metrics to the dashboard?
- [ ] If this PR requires public announcement, mark it with
/release-notes label and add several sentences in this section.
This reverts commit 56a4466d0a.
Seems that flackiness increased after this commit, while the time
decrease was a couple of seconds.
With every regular Python test spawing 1 etcd, 3 safekeepers, 1
pageserver, few CLI commands and post-run cleanup hooks, it might be
hard to run many such tests in parallel.
We could return to this later, after we consider alternative test
structure and/or CI runner structure.
It was nice to have and useful at the time, but unfortunately the method
used to gather the profiling data doesn't play nicely with 'async'. PR
#3228 will turn 'get_page_at_lsn' function async, which will break the
profiling support. Let's remove it, and re-introduce some kind of
profiling later, using some different method, if we feel like we need it
again.
I have experimented with the runner threads number, and looks like 8
threads win us a few seconds.
Bumping the thread count more did not improve the situation much:
* 20 threads were not allowed by pytest
* 16 threads were flacking quite notably
My guess would be that all pageservers, safekeepers, and other nodes we
start occupy quite much of the CPU and other resources to make this
approach more scalable.
