EBS gp3 volume scalable throughput

[ewbankkit]

Community Note

• Please vote on this issue by adding a 👍 reaction to the original issue to help the community and maintainers prioritize this request
• Please do not leave "+1" or other comments that do not add relevant new information or questions, they generate extra noise for issue followers and do not help prioritize the request
• If you are interested in working on this issue or have submitted a pull request, please leave a comment

Description

With the new gp3 EBS volumes throughput is scalable.

New or Affected Resource(s)

Resources

• aws_ami
• aws_ebs_volume
• aws_instance
• aws_launch_configuration Not (yet?) supported
• aws_launch_template
• aws_spot_fleet_request
• aws_spot_instance_request

Data Sources

• aws_ami
• aws_ebs_volume
• aws_instance
• aws_launch_configuration Not (yet?) supported
• aws_launch_template

Potential Terraform Configuration

resource "aws_ebs_volume" "example" {
  type       = "gp3"
  throughput = 500
}

References

Announcement.
User Guide.

[ewbankkit]

I propose splitting into a number of smaller PRs, once for each resource (and data source if applicable).

• aws_ami (version 3.25.0)
• aws_ebs_volume (version 3.25.0)
• aws_instance (version 3.22.0)
• aws_launch_template (version 3.21.0)
• aws_spot_fleet_request (version 3.21.0)
• aws_spot_instance_request (version 3.21.0)

[lukedd]

Some of these resources only allow the iops option to be set for io1/io2 volume types, eg:
https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-aws/blob/v3.19.0/aws/resource_aws_instance.go#L1377
These would need to be extended to allow setting iops for gp3 instance types too. Is that going to be handled here or do we need to file a separate issue?

[k3ypad]

I know this was just released, but is there a seperate issue for all the services that use EBS volumes? e.g. RDS and Elasticseach to name a few

[ewbankkit]

@k3ypad Other service APIs have not (yet?) been updated to support the gp3 volume type (e.g. RDS CreateDBInstance).

[ewbankkit]

@lukedd Yes, those validations will be updated to allow iops to be specified for gp3 volumes.
For at least some of the resources we should be able to move those checks which run during terraform apply resource creation to terraform plan-time via a customdiff function.

[mattburgess]

aws_emr_cluster could use this same treatment, but like aws_launch_configuration doesn't appear to support the throughput parameter at the moment (https://github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go/blob/v1.36.2/service/emr/api.go#L15262-L15278).

[dimisjim]

@mattburgess EMR APIs do not support gp3 yet. See aws/aws-sdk#29

[bflad]

Support for gp3 volume type and throughput configuration has been added across various resources and data sources in the Terraform AWS Provider, with aws_ami* and aws_ebs_volume being released in version 3.25.0 later this week. If there are specific places remaining where the API supports the configuration, but the provider does not, please create new feature requests for specific tracking. 👍

[ghost]

This has been released in version 3.25.0 of the Terraform AWS provider. Please see the Terraform documentation on provider versioning or reach out if you need any assistance upgrading.

For further feature requests or bug reports with this functionality, please create a new GitHub issue following the template for triage. Thanks!

[vdmkenny]

This doesn't seem be working yet for launch configurations.
Using terraform 0.14.6 and aws provider 3.27.

Error: Error creating launch configuration: ValidationError: gp3 is invalid. Valid volume types are standard, io1, gp2, st1 and sc1.

[dimisjim]

@vdmkenny

from a few comments above: #16514 (comment)

If there are specific places remaining where the API supports the configuration, but the provider does not, please create new feature requests for specific tracking. +1

[ghost]

I'm going to lock this issue because it has been closed for 30 days ⏳. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active issues.

If you feel this issue should be reopened, we encourage creating a new issue linking back to this one for added context. Thanks!