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

[tempo-distributed] Define default affinity for compactor #3422

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

froblesmartin
Copy link

As it is not even defined as null as an example, I guess it was just totally forgotten. 😄 But it is available to be used at

affinity:
{{- tpl . $ | nindent 8 }}
{{- end }}

I am defining the same affinities as everywhere else, also the same as in loki-distributed for the compactor.

Please, let me know if everything is alright or if I should change something.

@CLAassistant
Copy link

CLAassistant commented Nov 12, 2024

CLA assistant check
All committers have signed the CLA.

@froblesmartin froblesmartin force-pushed the docs/tempo-compactor-affinity branch 2 times, most recently from fb7366f to d4cd07f Compare November 12, 2024 14:22
@froblesmartin
Copy link
Author

Hi @mapno ! :)

I have pushed an update with the README.md updated as well as bumping the patch version. In this case, this change defines a new default value, which could be considered a breaking change 🤔 but in this case, if someone had defined something then it will not affect them, and if they didn't, this is a good to have. Still, someone with a single node could see pods after the 1st one not being scheduled.

Let me know what you think 😉

Thanks!

@mapno
Copy link
Member

mapno commented Nov 15, 2024

Hi @mapno ! :)

I have pushed an update with the README.md updated as well as bumping the patch version. In this case, this change defines a new default value, which could be considered a breaking change 🤔 but in this case, if someone had defined something then it will not affect them, and if they didn't, this is a good to have. Still, someone with a single node could see pods after the 1st one not being scheduled.

Let me know what you think 😉

Thanks!

Hi @froblesmartin. I think putting a disclaimer in the README should be enough for this change. A minor version update seems ok. Thanks for the PR!

@froblesmartin
Copy link
Author

Hi @froblesmartin. I think putting a disclaimer in the README should be enough for this change. A minor version update seems ok. Thanks for the PR!

@mapno done 😉 bumped a minor version and added some lines in the README 👍

Copy link
Member

@mapno mapno left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, thanks!

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