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

Add protect min on demand option #268

Open
clayrisser opened this issue Jun 14, 2018 · 7 comments
Open

Add protect min on demand option #268

clayrisser opened this issue Jun 14, 2018 · 7 comments

Comments

@clayrisser
Copy link
Contributor

It would be nice to have an option that automatically enables instance protection on the minimum number of required on-demand instances. Theoretically, when this number is decreased, it should deactivate instance protection on the respective instances.

@xlr-8
Copy link
Contributor

xlr-8 commented Jun 18, 2018

Hello, could you clarify a bit the need of this, I'm not sure to follow. Thanks!

@clayrisser
Copy link
Contributor Author

Instance protection should be enabled on the minimum number of required on-demand instances to prevent the on-demand instances from rotating.

@cristim
Copy link
Member

cristim commented Jun 18, 2018

In a mixed group, where we need to keep a number of running on-demand nodes, the idea is to protect the on-demand instances from scale-in in order for AutoScaling to first terminate the spot instances.

If we use percentages, the number of protected instances should go up and down according to the desired capacity.

@clayrisser
Copy link
Contributor Author

That's ok, that just means you might have to mark some as unprotected when you scale down

@cristim
Copy link
Member

cristim commented Jun 18, 2018

I'm actually thinking that it may cause replacement churn if we do this:

let's say you protect N given as 50% percentage, then the group scales down terminating a spot instance and then you will no longer need to protect N on demand but say N-1.

The group will now need to replace one of those on-demand nodes with spot, instead of just terminating one spot node in the first place, that gets us to the same result.

So I think this only makes sense if we're using the min_on_demand_number.

@clayrisser
Copy link
Contributor Author

That's fine, I would still find this feature useful for min on demand number

@cristim
Copy link
Member

cristim commented Mar 6, 2023

@clayrisser are you still interested in this functionality?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants