Update vagrant nodepool provider#378
Conversation
gandelman-a
left a comment
gandelman-a
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have a similar change to the allinone inventory i was just about to push up.... a couple comments
| - name: cicloud | ||
| cloud: cicloud | ||
| max-servers: 10 | ||
| max-servers: 3 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
for developers, we should probably keep this to 1 by default just to ease resource usage on the cloud
| max-servers: 3 | ||
| images: | ||
| - name: ubuntu-xenial | ||
| min-ram: 2048 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we can bump this down to 512 as well to conserve resources
| private-key: /var/lib/nodepool/.ssh/id_rsa | ||
| networks: | ||
| - name: 'nodepool' | ||
| public: False |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I dont think we want to encourage devs to boot slaves on our production nodepool environment. We could instead default to the 'internal' network and the slaves should be reachable via fixed ip from the dev env, assuming it to was booted on the internal network.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also, tip: we also need user-home and username set on the image so that nodepool, otherwise it defaults to jenkins
Update the nodepool provider defined in the vagrant group vars to work with the current opentechsjc network setup. There are multiple networks, so we must specify one to use. Also reduce the minimum nodes to reduce resource overhead. Signed-off-by: K Jonathan Harker <Jonathan.Harker@ibm.com>
ConsoleCatzirl
force-pushed
the
vagrant-nodepool
branch
from
977d1cd to
36c8d6d
Compare
2 participants
Update the nodepool provider defined in the vagrant group vars to
work with the current opentechsjc network setup. There are multiple
networks, so we must specify one to use. Also reduce the minimum nodes
to reduce resource overhead.
Signed-off-by: K Jonathan Harker Jonathan.Harker@ibm.com