Movatterモバイル変換

[0]ホーム
URL:

Skip to content

Navigation Menu

Sign in
Appearance settings

Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests...

Provide feedback

We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

 Sign up
Appearance settings

docs: provide hardware recommendations for reference architectures#12534

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 ourterms of service andprivacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub?Sign in to your account

Merged
mtojek merged 39 commits into12426-mainfrom12426-recommend-control-plane-3
Mar 15, 2024

Conversation

mtojek
Copy link
Member

@mtojekmtojek commentedMar 11, 2024•
edited
Loading

Related:#12426

This PR describes hardware recommendations for Coder references architectures including node sizing forcoderd, workspace, provisioners, and the database.

@cian@mafredri
I reviewed the latest state of the art for scale tests, Grafana dashboards, and the current version ofScaling Coder. Feel free to adjust the numbers to be more accurate. I admit that I tried to give extra CPU/mem capacity.

@mtojekmtojek changed the titledocs: hardware recommendations for reference architecturesdocs: provide hardware recommendations for reference architecturesMar 12, 2024
@bpmctbpmct requested a review fromericpaulsenMarch 13, 2024 12:48
@mtojekmtojek marked this pull request as ready for reviewMarch 13, 2024 14:18
@ericpaulsen
Copy link
Member

we may want to link/add to the architecture diagrams i've added here:#12584

mtojek reacted with eyes emoji

@mtojek
Copy link
MemberAuthor

we may want to link/add to the architecture diagrams i've added here:#12584

Thanks for linking the PR. I will update the architecture page once your PR is merged. BTW I wanted to elaborate more on thesehere.

@mtojekmtojek requested a review fromjohnstcnMarch 14, 2024 12:28
Copy link
Member

@mafredrimafredri left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.

Really nice work on this@mtojek, looking great. Left some comments for minor adjustments, and also re-reviewed the text that was moved toindex.md.


| Users | Node capacity | Replicas | Storage | GCP | AWS | Azure |
| ----------- | -------------------- | -------- | ------- | ------------------- | -------------- | ----------------- |
| Up to 2,000 | 4 vCPU, 16 GB memory | 1 | 1 TB | `db-custom-4-15360` | `db.t3.xlarge` | `Standard_D4s_v3` |
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.

We've been using adb-custom-8-32768 for our 2000 user scaletests, so these CPU number here may be slightly inaccurate. Granted, for a regular (non-scaletest) deployment, I think 4 vCPU is borderline sufficient as it's the 2000 active workspaces that push the DB CPU load up to ~80% (8 vCPU).

Copy link
MemberAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.

On the other hand, our scaletesting methology was really aggressive, so I would expect a similar pattern on the user side 🤔
What is your recommendation@maf? Should we switch todb-custom-8-32768?


When determining scaling requirements, consider the following factors:

- `1 vCPU x 2 GB memory x 250 users`: A reasonable formula to determine resource
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.

I think this better matches our reference arch?

Suggested change
-`1 vCPU x 2 GB memory x 250 users`: A reasonable formula to determine resource
-`0.5 vCPU x 2 GB memory x 250 users`: A reasonable formula to determine resource

Copy link
MemberAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.

Thinking about the future, I would leave1 vCPU, WDYT?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.

We can probably argue for wiggle room here based on how certain Terraform providers may be more CPU-intensive than others.

mtojek reacted with thumbs up emoji
Copy link
Member

@johnstcnjohnstcn left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.

Lots of good stuff here. I think we're going to end up modifying this based later feedback, but 👍 right now.

mtojek reacted with rocket emoji
@mtojek
Copy link
MemberAuthor

Thanks for the reviews, folks. I'm going to merge it and we can implement the next changes in follow-ups.

@mtojekmtojek merged commitbed0d85 into12426-mainMar 15, 2024
@mtojekmtojek deleted the 12426-recommend-control-plane-3 branchMarch 15, 2024 14:08
@github-actionsgithub-actionsbot locked and limited conversation to collaboratorsMar 15, 2024
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account?Sign in.
Reviewers

@johnstcnjohnstcnjohnstcn approved these changes

@bpmctbpmctbpmct left review comments

@mafredrimafredrimafredri approved these changes

@ericpaulsenericpaulsenAwaiting requested review from ericpaulsen

Assignees

@mtojekmtojek

Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants
@mtojek@ericpaulsen@mafredri@johnstcn@bpmct
[8]ページ先頭
©2009-2025 Movatter.jp