-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 493
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
gep: add GEP-3388 HTTPRoute Retry Budget #3488
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
gep: add GEP-3388 HTTPRoute Retry Budget #3488
Conversation
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: ericdbishop The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
Welcome @ericdbishop! |
Hi @ericdbishop. Thanks for your PR. I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the I understand the commands that are listed here. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. |
/ok-to-test |
For the API implementation, I've been comparing approaches between introducing retry budgets as a part of HTTPRoute, or implementation via policy attachments. Retry budgets are the default retry policy for Linkerd, and are highly recommended by Envoy when configuring cluster circuit breaker thresholds, so simplicity will be a priority here. HTTPRoute
|
What type of PR is this?
/kind gep
What this PR does / why we need it:
To seek consensus on the ideal configuration of a "retry budget" in HTTPRoute, allowing application developers to dynamically limit the rate of client-side retries to their service based on a percentage of the active request volume.
Extends #1731
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #3388
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: