[charts/druid, charts/gateway, charts/gateway-otk, charts/portal] Allow PodDisruptionBudget configuration

CAAPIM / apim-charts

Helm Charts for Layer7 API Management components.

MIT License

12 stars 48 forks source link

[charts/druid, charts/gateway, charts/gateway-otk, charts/portal] Allow PodDisruptionBudget configuration #205

Closed jmmAVGO closed 1 year ago

jmmAVGO commented 1 year ago

Description of the change

Permits the use of helm chart optionis to support HA-deployments by adding PodDisruptionBudget objects

Benefits

Customers will be able to ensure a minimum number of pods running for each service (or maximum number of unavailable pods)

Drawbacks

Uncertain of values approach for minio, especially; also kafka+zookeper, since rely on quorums. Note: pdbs disabled by default in all configurations.

Applicable issues

fixes #

Additional information

Checklist

[x] Chart version bumped in Chart.yaml according to semver.
[x] Variables are documented in the README.md
[x] Title of the PR starts with chart name (e.g. [charts/gateway])
[x] If the chart contains a values-production.yaml apart from values.yaml, ensure that you implement the changes in both files

jmmAVGO commented 1 year ago

@Gazza7205 can i get your feedback on this? would love to see what my next steps are. (edit: or @gvermeulen7205 , whichever i should be usinig, sorry!)

jmmAVGO commented 1 year ago

@Gazza7205 Sandeep is sayinig "stable" may not be the correct branch target here ; can you confirm Ishould change my branch to "develop"?

Gazza7205 commented 1 year ago

@Gazza7205 Sandeep is sayinig "stable" may not be the correct branch target here ; can you confirm Ishould change my branch to "develop"?

Given this affects more than one Chart and adds functionality that is not enabled by default I don't have a strong opinion against merging this into stable. There is a process for develop that should be followed if Sandeep has requested that. I'm not quite sure where it fits though.

jmmAVGO commented 1 year ago

@Gazza7205 I've attempted to address your concerns - I've made the miin/max conditioinals, and added labels to the PDBs (I'm assuming that was that you meant).

jmmAVGO commented 1 year ago

@APIM-KiranVaddadi @SatishKoney-BRCM doo you have feelings/opinioins on the target branch? @Gazza7205 forgive me for trying to be ignorant about it all just a little biit longer, but I don't know how you all do branches. Sandeep was certaiin 'stable' was not the correct target branch, but I am much less informed (and therefore less opinioinated)

Also, if I haven't mentioned it before, my keyboard has problems, and Broadcom isn't going to fix it. I've stopped correcting the typos; there are simply too many.

jmmAVGO commented 1 year ago

@Gazza7205 @dev2020-sr I think this PR is still good to go (at least agaiinst this branch) and valuable. I donn't really understand the different product/branches here; can you two please work out which branch this should be against and let me know? IIf necessary, II can rebase and briing it up to date. IIf not, I'm happy to merge as-is.

jmmAVGO commented 1 year ago

Setting do not merge on this. Going to come back at this with separate PRs for each product.

jmmAVGO commented 1 year ago

Superseded by #211 , #212 , #222 Closing