Skip to content
  • Iustin Pop's avatar
    d10b27ef
    Change the node N+1 check model · d10b27ef
    Iustin Pop authored
    Currently, we fail a new instance placement if the new node status is
    not N+1 compliant. This means that an allocation on an already N+1
    failed node still fails, even though (conceptually) we're not worse than
    before.
    
    This patch changes this model to fail the allocation *only* if the node
    was N+1 compliant before. This allows balancing to work on non-N+1 happy
    clusters, with the caveat that they probably won't be N+1 happy at the
    end.
    
    Since we skip N+1 check in some cases, we add a new “failHealth” check
    that verifies the node still has strict positive free memory and disk
    space.
    d10b27ef
    Change the node N+1 check model
    Iustin Pop authored
    Currently, we fail a new instance placement if the new node status is
    not N+1 compliant. This means that an allocation on an already N+1
    failed node still fails, even though (conceptually) we're not worse than
    before.
    
    This patch changes this model to fail the allocation *only* if the node
    was N+1 compliant before. This allows balancing to work on non-N+1 happy
    clusters, with the caveat that they probably won't be N+1 happy at the
    end.
    
    Since we skip N+1 check in some cases, we add a new “failHealth” check
    that verifies the node still has strict positive free memory and disk
    space.
Loading