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

AWS AutoScaling Group Support for Control Plane / Workers #780

Closed
cmoone opened this issue Jan 31, 2020 · 5 comments
Closed

AWS AutoScaling Group Support for Control Plane / Workers #780

cmoone opened this issue Jan 31, 2020 · 5 comments
Labels
kind/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature.

Comments

@cmoone
Copy link

cmoone commented Jan 31, 2020

What feature would you like to be added?
Please add an option to configure KubeOne to build either standalone servers (current implementation) or allow users to configure control plane, workers, or both to run as autoscaled instance groups (requested feature).

What are use cases of the feature?
This would allow me to stand up a scalable High Availability cluster, which with my stateless application will greatly reduce costs and minimize ongoing maintenance.

@cmoone cmoone added the kind/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature. label Jan 31, 2020
@kron4eg
Copy link
Member

kron4eg commented Jan 31, 2020

I'd call this issue a duplicate of #391
Since worker nodes are governed by machine-controller, we hope to get autoscaler from the upstream. At the moment however the upstream PR kubernetes/autoscaler#1866 is blocked.

@xmudrii WDYT?

@cmoone
Copy link
Author

cmoone commented Jan 31, 2020

@kron4eg my understanding of cluster-autoscaler is that you must have your nodes running in an autoscaling group for it to effectively scale nodes up or down.

@kron4eg
Copy link
Member

kron4eg commented Jan 31, 2020

@cmoone in current state — yes, but with that pending PR the CA will get ClusterAPI support and that will unlock all supported clouds, and independent from presence of ASG functionality at provider side, so quite powerful thing to have :)

@cmoone
Copy link
Author

cmoone commented Jan 31, 2020

@kron4eg sounds amazing. Thanks for that explanation. Feel free to close as this seems duplicative.

@kron4eg
Copy link
Member

kron4eg commented Jan 31, 2020

closed as dup of #391

@kron4eg kron4eg closed this as completed Jan 31, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
kind/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants