Closed OmarIthawi closed 3 years ago
does it still make sense to have the hostname as part of the key prefix? it seems like we'd want all the servers to be using the same cache prefix?
Good question @thraxil. It does make sense, to hopefully support a rolling deployment.
Right now the S3 setup risks breaking the rolling deployment in terms of having no static files ready, but that's something we'll know for sure once we start deploying.
@OmarIthawi if the random number or a revision id is set during the deploy, that handles a rolling deployment just fine.
Eg, if they are all set to the key prefix of "000" and then a deploy starts, edxapp0
gets its prefix updated to "001", edxapp1
and edxapp2
are continuing to handle requests and using "000" as their prefix. Then edxapp1
gets updated to "001", etc. The only difference in this scenario vs where they key prefix is "edxapp0-000", "edxapp1-000", and "edxapp2-000" getting updated to "edxapp0-001", "edxapp1-001", and "edxapp2-000" is that once the deploy is complete those servers all still have independent caches.
@OmarIthawi if the random number or a revision id is set during the deploy, that handles a rolling deployment just fine.
Eg, if they are all set to the key prefix of "000" and then a deploy starts,
edxapp0
gets its prefix updated to "001",edxapp1
andedxapp2
are continuing to handle requests and using "000" as their prefix. Thenedxapp1
gets updated to "001", etc. The only difference in this scenario vs where they key prefix is "edxapp0-000", "edxapp1-000", and "edxapp2-000" getting updated to "edxapp0-001", "edxapp1-001", and "edxapp2-000" is that once the deploy is complete those servers all still have independent caches.
Looking back at this, the host name isn't needed. I just kept it because that's what upstream had.
RED-1961.