Re: App autosleep support
James Bayer
this feature request has come up occasionally, but rarely. this type of
feature is usually the most applicable to service providers with a free or very low cost tier, where this can make a substantial difference in increasing density. you should consider rescheduling when moving out of the dormant state (which may take awhile to send the container image to a new host), then you have to account for resource reservations on the Cells anyway in case they all wake up. one possibility is the common case to have the container image pre-staged on a host and the Cell typically would have enough resources available. in the case where it doesn't, then you reschedule and hold the requests (up to a max # of requests for that app) longer. has some interesting potential for DOS if not constrained. the use of a route-service for implementation is an interesting idea, but it does mean that every request for the app needs to go through a route service even when the app is not sleeping, so i could also see other alternative designs that stay out of the request path unless the app is dormant. maybe that's something the system could do (after inactivity period bind the app to a route-service) and when leaving the dormant state, unbind the app from the route service. it's probably most important to define "the what and why" of this feature first, and then we can ask the routing eng team if they have ideas on how to implement or if it makes sense as existing points of extension like a service and the in-progress route service. On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Gwenn Etourneau <getourneau(a)pivotal.io> wrote: For the autosleep feature why not but again only for non-prod application. -- Thank you, James Bayer |
|