Allow to create Deployment instead of StatefulSets #123
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
As we are working on tuning our Quickwit instance for our use case, having StatefulSets is blocking us from iterating faster on disk size, cache size, etc.
Therefore, I propose to allow to opt-in to use Deployment instead of StatefulSet.
I understand the consequence of this.
When using StatefulSet, pod names have a predictable pattern, and the Quickwit cache is reused (linked to the pod name/host) even if we do a rolling update.
While on Deployment (which uses random names), the cache will be lost (and I'm even setting up ephemeral storage).
I understand this will require both files to be kept in sync (95% similar), but it is a valid use case.
(Set as draft because I need to run some tests, but I leave this open for feedback)