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

Implementation for #200 #214

Closed

Conversation

torwen1
Copy link
Contributor

@torwen1 torwen1 commented Jul 1, 2021

This is a suggestion for the implementation of #200

I already implemented exactly this code at a customer. It introduces two new variables to var.tfvars to control how many logical ports shall be used for VNIC failover and also to define the capacity of the logical ports.

torwen1 and others added 2 commits July 1, 2021 13:53
This is a suggestion for the implementation of ocp-power-automation#200

I already implemented exactly this code at a customer. It introduces two new variables to var.tfvars to control how many logical ports shall be used for VNIC failover and also to define the capacity of the logical ports.

Signed-off-by: Torsten Wendland <twendlan@de.ibm.com>
Added the file by mistake
@ppc64le-cloud-bot
Copy link

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: torwen1
To complete the pull request process, please assign bpradipt after the PR has been reviewed.
You can assign the PR to them by writing /assign @bpradipt in a comment when ready.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@ppc64le-cloud-bot
Copy link

Welcome @torwen1! It looks like this is your first PR to ocp-power-automation/ocp4-upi-powervm 🎉

@ppc64le-cloud-bot
Copy link

Hi @torwen1. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a ocp-power-automation member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

@Prajyot-Parab
Copy link
Collaborator

@torwen1 Thanks for the PR, can you please squash commits into a single one.

yussufsh and others added 5 commits July 1, 2021 15:04
Added 3 min wait for the drain command to complete. This will help when no worker nodes are left for scheduling non disruptive pods.

Fixes ocp-power-automation#203

Signed-off-by: Yussuf Shaikh <yussuf.shaikh@ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: CS Zhang <zhangcho@us.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: CS Zhang <zhangcho@us.ibm.com>
This is a suggestion for the implementation of ocp-power-automation#200

I already implemented exactly this code at a customer. It introduces two new variables to var.tfvars to control how many logical ports shall be used for VNIC failover and also to define the capacity of the logical ports.

Signed-off-by: Torsten Wendland <twendlan@de.ibm.com>
@ppc64le-cloud-bot
Copy link

@torwen1: Adding label do-not-merge/contains-merge-commits because PR contains merge commits, which are not allowed in this repository.
Use git rebase to reapply your commits on top of the target branch. Detailed instructions for doing so can be found here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

@torwen1
Copy link
Contributor Author

torwen1 commented Jul 1, 2021

Will cancel the PR because did something wrong during squash the commits. Will cleanup my fork and open a new one.

@torwen1 torwen1 closed this Jul 1, 2021
@torwen1 torwen1 deleted the Implementation-for-#200 branch July 1, 2021 13:16
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants