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

Move away from zero-RPS == unlimited-RPS, as it isn't always correct #6468

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 4, 2024

Conversation

Groxx
Copy link
Member

@Groxx Groxx commented Nov 1, 2024

"Global" RPS limits have a surprising fallback that keeps confusing us:
if the configured RPS is zero, it ignores the limit entirely and only
uses the per-instance RPS (e.g. FrontendMaxDomainVisibilityRPSPerInstance).

But since these are generally used in a tiered setup with those same limits,
this doesn't really do anything except repeatedly mislead us that "0" means
"unlimited" because the per-instance-RPS values are generally very high.

So this moves one away and adds some documentation about it. There may be
others, but they aren't adjusted anywhere near as much as these three.

"Global" RPS limits have a surprising fallback that keeps confusing us:
if the configured RPS is zero, it ignores the limit entirely and only
uses the per-instance RPS (e.g. `FrontendMaxDomainVisibilityRPSPerInstance`).

But since these are generally used in a tiered setup with those same limits,
this doesn't really do anything except repeatedly mislead us that "0" means
"unlimited" because the per-instance-RPS values are generally very high.

So this moves one away and adds some documentation about it.  There may be
others, but they aren't adjusted anywhere near as much as these three.
Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 1, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 79.62%. Comparing base (c7b20d4) to head (6d7773e).
Report is 14 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

see 23 files with indirect coverage changes


Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update c7b20d4...6d7773e. Read the comment docs.

@Groxx Groxx merged commit c7dfbd6 into cadence-workflow:master Nov 4, 2024
20 checks passed
@Groxx Groxx deleted the safer_hardcoded branch November 4, 2024 18:17
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.

2 participants