I'm a +1 on some form of this. I've run into it with our CI and Jenkins. Java loves it some RAM before services startup and operate. I wonder if this kind of thing is discoverable in charm testing? At least to help us gauge the subset of charms that might use something like this in order to start and operate.
Rick On Wed, 27 Aug 2014, Matt Bruzek wrote: > I am tentatively +1 for adding some charm metadata for minimum requirements > for the charm. We could certainly add that kind of information in the > README but having it in the metadata would make it automatic (magic). > > José makes a great point about how something like this could increase the > cloud bill unexpectedly. Perhaps some kind of informational message > requiring a response from the user would be good here. Users could accept > or override the constraints. > > The number of charms that would take advantage of this metadata would be a > small subset of what we have. The big data charms, and other resource > intensive charms could set this optional metadata to give the user a good > experience. > > Are there any other concerns that people have about this metadata idea? > > - Matt Bruzek <matthew.bru...@canonical.com> > > > On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 7:21 AM, José Antonio Rey <j...@ubuntu.com> wrote: > > > It is a nice idea, but it should definitely fire up a warning saying > > that the machine will have larger specs, as well as asking for > > confirmation. I don't want to see any surprise charges in my AWS bills! > > > > On 08/27/2014 02:34 AM, Mark Shuttleworth wrote: > > > On 27/08/14 00:10, Matt Bruzek wrote: > > >> First and most importantly the hpcc charm deploys according to the > > readme > > >> file! I had to increase the memory constraints on the HP-cloud to 4GB > > per > > >> machine (juju set-constraints mem=4GB) so all the services had enough > > >> memory to start up. After that I was able to cluster by adding units of > > >> hpcc. > > > > > > We have a couple of charms which break on tiny instances on some clouds > > > because of this sort of disconnect. Would it be helpful to be able to > > > encode minimum requirements in the charm metadata? > > > > > > Obviously, real requirements are configuration and load dependent, but I > > > think we could avoid the obvious "try it then debug it" cycle if we had > > > some explicit minimum requirements up front. > > > > > > Thanks for the review commentary and advice to charmers! > > > > > > Mark > > > > > > > -- > > José Antonio Rey > > > -- > Juju mailing list > Juju@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju -- Juju mailing list Juju@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
