-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 16
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
Drop requirement for DBRs #85
Conversation
Tested this locally. Works fine when provisioning VMs.
|
might we also want to issue a new version of the virtualmachineclaim crd and remove the reference to dynamicbindrequest from the status? |
…up vmclaimcontroller
@ebauman the new commit addresses this. I have changed the logging behavior in util.VerifyVM method. |
…er immediately reaps finished sessions. Also dropped needed for reaping dbr's when session is finished
When having restirected bind disabled on a SE we are receiving a When restrictedbind is enabled this works very nice! Good Job! |
@jggoebel i will check out the scenario with restricted bind disabled as well.. should be an easy fix. |
…stricted bind events
I have not tested the new commit yet but it looks promising! Unfortunately though we have found another issue with this PR. Another issue i found is that the "on demand" setting can not be updated when editing an event. This is not an issue with this PR but could be fixed as well. When having "on demand" disabled the admin UI also shows "on demand" as enabled while editing the event. Edit: i fixed the other issue regarding the update of these settings in |
Currently disabling on-demand provisioning is mostly useless. It provisions the extra compute which is never used. Even without these changes, the sessionserver generates a VirtualMachineClaim which is by default DynamicCapable. As a result of this the vmclaimcontroller spins up infra to handle this request. Since the sessionserver never checks the nature of the scheduledevent, we always defaulting to on-demand provisioning. We don't plan to have static pre-provisioning in the future anyways, so i see no reason to handle this scenario, when the virtualmachineclaim types are always going to be dynamic capable. |
I tested this again on the current master state. I think it is a valid option to preprovision machines. Sometimes provisioning a machine with a large image takes some minutes. So the option to preprovision them bevore the event starts is useful to prevent long waiting times for the user. |
What this PR does / why we need it:
Gargantua has a complex logic to try static and dynamic binds.
This results in a lot of dynamic bind requests being created, when something like a slow api server is preventing the object processing to be completed in time.
The session server already specifies the VirtualMachineClaims to be dynamic in nature.
This PR cleans up the VirtualMachineClaim controller logic to handle vm interaction and reconcillation within the VMC controller.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes: