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

design for running multiple velero backups/restores concurrently #2601

Open
skriss opened this issue Jun 2, 2020 · 3 comments
Open

design for running multiple velero backups/restores concurrently #2601

skriss opened this issue Jun 2, 2020 · 3 comments

Comments

@skriss
Copy link
Contributor

skriss commented Jun 2, 2020

No description provided.

@skriss skriss added the Area/Design Design Documents label Jun 2, 2020
@skriss skriss added this to the v1.5 milestone Jun 2, 2020
@ashish-amarnath ashish-amarnath modified the milestones: v1.5, v1.6 Aug 12, 2020
@nrb nrb modified the milestones: v1.6.0, v1.7.0 Feb 3, 2021
@dsu-igeek dsu-igeek modified the milestones: v1.7.0, v1.8.0 Jul 30, 2021
@sseago sseago added the 1.13-candidate issue/pr that should be considered to target v1.13 minor release label Aug 10, 2023
@sseago
Copy link
Collaborator

sseago commented Aug 10, 2023

With this feature, we're moving away from the idea of creating separate pods for concurrent backups (either with or without Jobs), mentioned in previous design PRs linked here, for a few reasons:

  1. We should be able to use the shared informer cache's
  2. that spinning pods will take an increasing amount of resources, and because they are all using their own clients, can DDOS the api server if we are not careful
  3. That many other things have complicated tasks that are done in a single controller manager (see pods/kubelet for example)

@ywk253100
Copy link
Contributor

In the first step, we could introduce the support for vertical expansion by making the controller-runtime worker count configurable(default value is 1).

@reasonerjt reasonerjt self-assigned this Aug 16, 2023
@weshayutin weshayutin added this to OADP Sep 20, 2023
@reasonerjt reasonerjt removed the 1.13-candidate issue/pr that should be considered to target v1.13 minor release label Sep 27, 2023
@reasonerjt reasonerjt removed this from the Prioritized issues milestone Sep 27, 2023
@reasonerjt reasonerjt added this to the v1.13 milestone Sep 27, 2023
@reasonerjt
Copy link
Contributor

Per discussion we'll start the investigation in v1.13 timeframe, but the actual final design may go beyond 1.13

Potentially we can deal with concurrent backup/restore separately as restore may have more challenge in race condition.

@weshayutin weshayutin moved this to In Progress in OADP Dec 5, 2023
@ywk253100 ywk253100 self-assigned this Dec 12, 2023
@reasonerjt reasonerjt removed this from the v1.13 milestone Mar 12, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

8 participants