Copilot commented on code in PR #232:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/skywalking-showcase/pull/232#discussion_r2726488188
##########
deploy/platform/kubernetes/values.yaml:
##########
@@ -267,6 +267,31 @@ skywalking:
dest: gcs://banyandb-backup/backup/cold-$(ORDINAL_NUMBER)
restoreInitContainer:
enabled: false
+ fodc:
+ agent:
+ resources:
+ requests:
+ - key: cpu
+ value: 1m
+ - key: memory
+ value: 10Mi
+ limits:
+ - key: cpu
+ value: 500m
+ - key: memory
+ value: 256Mi
+ proxy:
+ resources:
+ requests:
+ - key: cpu
+ value: 1m
+ - key: memory
+ value: 10Mi
Review Comment:
Same concern as the agent resources: requests are set far below limits
(1m/10Mi requests vs 500m/256Mi limits). This can cause misleading node sizing
and runtime throttling/evictions. Please adjust the requests to match expected
baseline consumption (or align them proportionally with limits).
##########
deploy/platform/kubernetes/values.yaml:
##########
@@ -267,6 +267,31 @@ skywalking:
dest: gcs://banyandb-backup/backup/cold-$(ORDINAL_NUMBER)
restoreInitContainer:
enabled: false
+ fodc:
+ agent:
+ resources:
+ requests:
+ - key: cpu
+ value: 1m
+ - key: memory
+ value: 10Mi
Review Comment:
The CPU/memory requests here are extremely low compared to the limits (1m vs
500m CPU; 10Mi vs 256Mi). Since Kubernetes schedules based on requests, this
can lead to heavy overcommit, CPU throttling, and memory-pressure evictions
under load. Consider setting requests closer to the expected steady-state usage
(or at least to a reasonable fraction of the limits) so scheduling/QoS reflect
reality.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
