Skip to content

Conversation

@RocKhalil
Copy link

Added the possibility of having node_name aka nodeName in the proc configuration.
This allows users to push each proc to a different node

@RocKhalil RocKhalil changed the title ✨ Add node_name to procs ✨ Add nodeSelector to procs Jun 13, 2023
@RocKhalil
Copy link
Author

Updated to use nodeSelector with key and name;
example: node_pool_key: 'doks.digitalocean.com/node-pool', node_pool_name: 'api'

usage:

proc :web, 'bundle exec puma -C config/puma.rb', scale: 5, node_pool_key: 'doks.digitalocean.com/node-pool', node_pool_name: 'api'

@RocKhalil RocKhalil force-pushed the features/node-name branch from 41ac68c to 933df51 Compare June 20, 2023 09:01
@collimarco
Copy link
Contributor

Probably it would be better to have something like node: { key: 'val', another_key: 'value' }

@RocKhalil
Copy link
Author

@collimarco I can be an option, however it will still require custom key names to map directly into the kube file. so we'll need to do:

node: { pool_key: '..', pool_name: '...' }

@collimarco
Copy link
Contributor

@RocKhalil No, it would be node: { 'pool_key': 'pool_name' }. This also allows to filter nodes based on other conditions, not just the pool name.

@RocKhalil
Copy link
Author

@collimarco basically the pool_key has different values based on the provider.
example:
GKE: cloud.google.com/gke-nodepool
Digital Ocean: doks.digitalocean.com/node-pool

@collimarco
Copy link
Contributor

@RocKhalil Yes, I know, it's what I said... node: { 'doks.digitalocean.com/node-pool': 'my-pool-1' }

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