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

[Bug] Split Deployments cleanup #220

Open
andrewazores opened this issue Nov 29, 2024 · 0 comments
Open

[Bug] Split Deployments cleanup #220

andrewazores opened this issue Nov 29, 2024 · 0 comments
Labels
bug Something isn't working

Comments

@andrewazores
Copy link
Member

Current Behavior

Since #192 there are some peripheral configuration pieces that are still shared across the Deployments, but should not be, particularly in the chart's "other parameters":

https://github.com/cryostatio/cryostat-helm/tree/b91e9bd3c3e0958725290eaf06c5271bb3096ef1?tab=readme-ov-file#other-parameters

  • at the least, some of these descriptions should be updated to reflect that they affect the whole installation, not only the "Cryostat deployment" (which sounds like the one Deployment for Cryostat itself, and not the database, storage, etc.)
  • the serviceaccount that gets created is currently shared across all Deployments. Only Cryostat itself really needs any of the additional roles, so only it should use the serviceaccount. The other Deployments should be OK to use their default service accounts.
  • podAnnotations should be distributed across each of the deployments, so that custom annotations can be specified for any of them. It may make sense to keep a global podAnnotations parameter which applies to all of them, so that common annotations can be placed here rather than repeated everywhere.
  • podSecurityContext should probably have individual settings as well as a global shared setting to default to.
  • nodeSelector should also have individual settings and a global fallback/default.
  • tolerations same as above
  • affinity same as above
  • pvc.* should be moved to the Deployments which are expected to actually need persistent claims, ie. storage and database, and should be separated so that they can have different size requests or storage classes etc.

Expected Behavior

No response

Steps To Reproduce

No response

Environment

No response

Anything else?

No response

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working
Projects
Status: Backlog
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant