I have 2 similar GKE Clusters, first running version 1.23.12-gke.100 and other running 1.24.5-gke.600.
Since standard-rwo storage class is immutable, to update reclaimPolicy I do the below:
In 1.23 cluster, I can delete standard-rwo class, modify reclaimPolicy and create the storageClass again.
In 1.24 cluster, I cannot delete standard-rwo as it gets recreated immediately. Any suggestions on how to change reclaimPolicy?
You can just create a new storage class rather than deleting and (re)creating the existing one.
Less ideal options:
If you do not use dynamic provisioning, you can set the persistentVolumeReclaimPolicy on the PV resource itself.
If you are using dynamic provisioning, you can patch the created PV and update the persistentVolumeReclaimPolicy as well.
Related
I would like to automatically add network-tag(http-server, https-server) to compute node which is automatically created by slurm-gcp .
After creating a node, the method of manually adding it using the gcloud command is temporarily used.
However, as more nodes are created, the time of manual addition becomes too slow.
I created a custom image and created an instance template using that image. (including http-server and https-server)
However, it does not appear to utilize the instance template at all when created.
I wonder how to solve it.
Thank you.
According to the documentation:
If you need to create a tag on a VM, you must create the tag manually.
You can assign network tags to new VMs at creation time, or you can edit the set of assigned tags at any time later. You can edit network tags without stopping a VM.You can also add tags to, and remove tags from, an existing VM.
Check out the documentation on Configuring network tags.
I solved this problem.
I modified the partial code that creates the network tag of the compute node in the slurm/scripts/resume.py file.
'tags': {'items': ['compute']},
-------
'tags': {'items': ['compute', 'http-server', 'https-server']},
changed below.
I have a Kubernetes cluster that uses 1.17.17. I want to increase the CPU/RAM of a node using KOPS. When running kops update cluster command, I expect it would return the preview of my old instance type VS new instance type.
However, it returns a long line of will create resources/will modify resources.
I want to know why it shows a long log of changes it will execute instead of showing only the changes I made for instance type. Also, if this is safe to apply the changes.
After you will do that cluster update you are going to do rolling update on that cluster. The nodes will be terminated one by one and the new ones are going to show. Also while one node is going down to be replaced with the new one the services inside that node are going to be shifted on that one . Small tip remove all poddistributionbudgets. Also the log is fine dont worry.
I am trying to create a datashare in Redshift by following this documentation. When I type this command:
CREATE DATASHARE datashare_name
I get this message:
ERROR: CREATE DATASHARE is not enabled.
I also tried to make it using console, but same issue.
So how to enable data sharing in Redshift ?
From the documents:here
Data sharing via datashare is only available for ra3 instance types
The document lists ra3.16xlarge, ra3.4xlarge, and ra3.xlplus instance types for producer and consumer clusters.
So, if I were in your place - I would first go back and check my instance type. If still not sure, drop a simple CS ticket and ask them if anything has changed recently & documentation is not updated
I'm importing the existing resources (AWS RDS) but the terraform plan command showed a summary:
#aws_db_instance.my_main_db must be replaced
+/- resource "aws_db_instance" "my_main_db" {
~ address = x
allocated_storage = x
+ apply_immediately = x
~ arn = x
~ username = x
+ password = x
(others arguments with alot of +/- and ~)
}
my_main_db is online with persistent data. My question is as the title; Is it safe for the existing database to run terrafrom apply? I don't want to lose all my customer data.
"Replace" in Terraform's terminology means to destroy the existing object and create a new one to replace it. The +/- symbol (as opposed to -/+) indicates that this particular resource will be replaced in the "create before destroy" mode, where there will briefly be two database instances existing during the operation. (This may or may not be possible in practice, depending on whether the instance name is changing as part of this operation.)
For aws_db_instance in particular, destroying an instance is equivalent to deleting the instance in the RDS console: unless you have a backup of the contents of the database, it will be lost. Even if you do have a backup, you'll need to restore it via the RDS console or API rather than with Terraform because Terraform doesn't know about the backup/restore mechanism and so its idea of "create" is to produce an entirely new, empty database.
To sum up: applying a plan like this directly is certainly not generally "safe", because Terraform is planning to destroy your database and all of the contents along with it.
If you need to make changes to your database that cannot be performed without creating an entirely new RDS instance, you'll usually need to make those changes outside of Terraform using RDS-specific tools so that you can implement some process for transferring data between the old and new instances, whether that be backup and then restore (which will require a temporary outage) or temporarily running both instances and setting up replication from old to new until you are ready to shut off the old one. The details of such a migration are outside of Terraform's scope, because they are specific to whatever database engine you are using.
It's most likely not safe, but really only someone familiar with the application can make that decision. Look at the properties and what is going to change or be recreated. Unless you are comfortable with all of those properties changing, then it's not safe.
I am trying to create a cloudsql instance with the following command:
gcloud beta sql instances create sql-instance-1 --tier=db-f1-micro --region=asia-south1 --network=default --storage-type=HDD --storage-size=10GB --authorized-networks=XX.XXX.XX.XX/XX
The instance sql-instance-1 is something I need not running all the time. So I create an sqldump file and when I need the database I create it. When I run this command it fails with the following error
ERROR: (gcloud.beta.sql.instances.create) Resource in project [my-project-id] is the subject of a conflict: The instance or operation is not in an appropriate state to handle the request.
From what I understand the gcloud is complaining that instance name was used before although the instance is already deleted. When I change the name to a new unused name the command works fine. The problem with this is I need to give a new name every time I re-create the instance from the dump.
My questions are:
Is this expected behavior i.e. should name of cloud-sql instance be unique and not used before within a project.
I also found that --network option is not recognized with gcloud. Seems to work only with gcloud beta as explained here. When is this expected to become GA?
This is indeed expected behaviour. From the documentation:
You cannot reuse an instance name for up to a week after you have
deleted an instance.
Regarding the --network flag and it's schedule for GA, there is no ETA for its release outside of beta. However, it's release will be listed in the Google Cloud SDK Release Notes, which you can get updates from by subscribing to the google-cloud-sdk-announce group