Hi

see details here
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/32375162/cf-app-shows-always-0-0-cpu-how-is-that-value-measured

Can you provide me details how this value is measured?

Lukas

Thanks Dieu for your response.

We have successfully implemented an async service broker for out internal
dbaas [1], [2] which db farms provisionning sometimes takes longer than
30s.

Concerning improvement suggestions on the documentation, I could only spot
an inconsistency on the sequence diagram, where the last operation
description is mismatching between broker response (1/3 nodes") and CC api
response ("40% complete") whereas the 'description' is a string which
should be returned as is. Hard to propose a PR on that since the source
file for this diagram does not seem available under docs-services [4]. BTW,
It would be great if bookbinder would support rendering diagrams from a
text format such as plantuml [5], or rely on plantuml public service [6]
for such rendering.

Wouldn't is make sense to exit the experimental status of the async api,
even if it's not feature complete ? i.e. considering the api is stable
enough and won't change in an incompatible maneer soon, thereby enabling
clients such as cf-java-client to rely on them.

One other potential improvement I see to the API would be to support
localized user-facing operation status description. Having the CLI being
I18Ned but brokers enable to return user facing messages in the user
language seems limiting. Maybe it could be the case of having the CLI add a
usual 'Accept-Language: zh_Hans" matching the current CLI locale, and the
CC propagating this header in the last_operation broker endpoint [7] so
that they can return the status message in the smae language when
translations are available.

Thanks,

Guillaume.

[1]
https://github.com/Orange-OpenSource/elpaaso-brokers/blob/master/cf-service-broker-dbaas/src/main/java/com/orange/clara/cloud/cf/servicebroker/dbaas/service/DbaasServiceInstanceService.java#L60
[2]
https://github.com/Orange-OpenSource/elpaaso-brokers/blob/a3f150fc7d3bb889875aac202496a4f63efc3595/cf-service-broker-dbaas/src/main/java/com/orange/clara/cloud/cf/servicebroker/dbaas/service/DbaasServiceInstanceService.java#L67-L73
[3]
http://docs.cloudfoundry.org/services/images/async-service-broker-flow.png
[4]
https://github.com/cloudfoundry/docs-services/blob/master/images/async-service-broker-flow.png
[5] http://plantuml.com/sequence.html
[6] http://plantuml.com/plantuml/
[7]
http://docs.cloudfoundry.org/services/asynchronous-operations.html#polling

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 5:50 PM, Dieu Cao <dcao(a)pivotal.io> wrote:

Hi Guillaume,

We are looking for a couple more pieces of feedback. All feedback I've
received so far has been positive.

There was one report recently from Robert Moss about being able to
provide the dashboard_url asynchronously instead of part of the original
response [1].
I'm also considering whether that needs to be addressed prior to marking
the feature complete, or if it should be a separate/additive change to the
service broker api.

If you've had success with the current implementation, I would be greatly
interested in hearing that.

-Dieu

[1]
https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/archives/list/cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org/thread/LJ26K22WG7OJCAIXWYPTJQKELVAUBUZC/

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 5:20 AM, Guillaume Berche <bercheg(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

Hi,

I'm wondering whether the experimental async service broker api is now
ready to become official, or whether the CAPI team and PMs are still
lacking feedback or have some outstanding issues that need to be addressed
before calling the spec official? I was not able to spot any async-related
stories in the CAPI backlog [1]

We have a pending PR in cf-java-client [2] which is waiting for the
async broker spec to be made official.

Thanks in advance,

Guillaume.

[1] https://www.pivotaltracker.com/n/projects/966314
[2]
https://github.com/cloudfoundry/cf-java-client/pull/282#issuecomment-115874984

On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 9:21 AM, James Bayer <jbayer(a)pivotal.io> wrote:

i'm very happy to see this work delivered as the 60 second limit has
come up so often as a pain point in the past. great job to all who
contributed!

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Onsi Fakhouri <ofakhouri(a)pivotal.io>
wrote:

Well done Services API! This is an awesome milestone!

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Chip Childers <
cchilders(a)cloudfoundry.org> wrote:

Awesome news! Long time coming, and it opens up a whole world of
additional capabilities for users.

Nice work everyone!



On Jun 4, 2015, at 9:00 AM, Shannon Coen <scoen(a)pivotal.io> wrote:

On behalf of the Services API team, including Dojo participants from
IBM and SAP, I'm pleased to announce experimental availability and
published documentation for this much-anticipated feature.

As of cf-release v208 and CLI v6.11.1, Cloud Foundry now supports an
enhanced service broker integration in support of long-running
provisioning, update, and delete operations. This significantly broadens
the supported use cases for Cloud Foundry Marketplace Services, and I can't
wait to hear what creative things the ecosystem does with it. Provision
VMs, orchestrate clusters, install software, move data... yes, your broker
can even open support tickets to have those things done manually!

This feature is currently considered experimental, as we'd like you
all to review our docs, try out the feature, and give us feedback. We very
interested to hear about any confusion in the docs or the UX, and any
sticky issues you encounter in implementation. Our goal is for our docs
enable a painless, intuitive (can we hope for joyful?) implementation
experience.

We have not bumped the broker API yet for this feature. You'll notice
that our documentation for the feature is separate from the stable API docs
at this point. Once we're confident in the design (we're relying on your
feedback!), we'll bump the broker API version, move the docs for
asynchronous operations into the stable docs, AND implement support for
asynchronous bind/create-key and unbind/delete-key.

Documentation:
- http://docs.cloudfoundry.org/services/asynchronous-operations.html
- http://docs.cloudfoundry.org/services/api.html
Example broker for AWS (contributed by IBM):
- http://docs.cloudfoundry.org/services/examples.html
- https://github.com/cloudfoundry-samples/go_service_broker
Demo of the feature presented at CF Summit 2015:
- https://youtu.be/Ij5KSKrAq9Q

tl;dr

Cloud Foundry expects broker responses within 60 seconds. Now a
broker can return an immediate response indicating that a provision,
update, or delete operation is in progress. Cloud Foundry then returns a
similar response to the client, and begins polling the broker for the
status of the operation. Users, via API clients, can discover the status of
the operation ("in progress", "succeeded", or "failed"), and brokers can
provide user-facing messages in response to each poll which are exposed to
users (e.g. "VMs provisioned, installing software, 30% complete").

Thank you,

Shannon Coen
Product Manager, Cloud Foundry
Pivotal, Inc.

_______________________________________________
cf-dev mailing list
cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org
https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev


_______________________________________________
cf-dev mailing list
cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org
https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev

_______________________________________________
cf-dev mailing list
cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org
https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev

--
Thank you,

James Bayer

_______________________________________________
cf-dev mailing list
cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org
https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev

On Aug 29, 2015, at 2:51 AM, James Bayer <jbayer(a)pivotal.io> wrote:

we've been using a new term for the same concept we've previously labeled placement pools called "isolation groups".

onsi has been working on some documentation for what this may look like and the requirements, but the work has not started. i believe onsi will share something soon.

so today, the way to accomplish this need to place apps on specific infrastructure is to use separate CF installations.

On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 8:50 AM, Matt Cholick <cholick(a)gmail.com <mailto:cholick(a)gmail.com>> wrote:
More than a year ago, there was some discussion and a proposal around adding placement pools so cloud foundry admins could better target how applications were placed on runners:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GNjQwGBh0BvfAYpX0LTUYn6h4oLz7v4P9pNy0xHZtMw/edit# <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GNjQwGBh0BvfAYpX0LTUYn6h4oLz7v4P9pNy0xHZtMw/edit#>

Did this work gain traction? I've looked through the release notes as well as MEGA and CF Diego's public trackers and don't see stories for this work either done or planned, though it could also be that I'm just not finding it.

My goal is to place canary apps in specifically Z1 or Z2, as well as place some internally used apps that, for networking reasons, should be in one zone or the other.

-Matt Cholick




--
Thank you,

James Bayer

On Sep 3, 2015, at 4:57 PM, Supraja Yasoda <ykmsupraja(a)gmail.com> wrote:



--
Regards,
Supraja.

Hi,

We think this message was dropped and so we are posting it again.

How long of a timeout are you seeing? The gorouter and ha_proxy have a
default timeout of 15 minutes. If you are using an ELB or some other load
balancer they may have their own timeout set. I'm not sure if any of the
app servers installed by buildpacks have a build in timeout or not, what
type of app is it?

Joseph and Dan
OSS Release Integration Team

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Flávio Henrique Schuindt da Silva <
flavio.schuindt(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Hi guys,

How can I increase the request timeout in CF? I would like to give more
time to my app to send a response to the requests before getting a timeout.
Should I increase it in the buildpack? If yes, where should I change it on
java buildpack?

Thanks in advance!

wrote:

Hi Daniel!

What I've done while testing is to set the variable BOSH_AWS_REGION to
the region I needed.

export BOSH_AWS_REGION=<your region here>

Regards!!

Joaquin Zalazar

Altoros


On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Daniel Jones <
daniel.jones(a)engineerbetter.com> wrote:

Hi all,

The CF docs for deploying CF to an AWS VPC
<https://docs.cloudfoundry.org/deploying/ec2/bootstrap-aws-vpc.html>
have a broken link to a Gist of Dan Highham's, that presumably talks about
deploying to regions other than us-east-1.

Does anyone know where the instructions for non-US regions are now?

Regards,

Daniel Jones
EngineerBetter.com

--

*Joaquin Zalazar*
*ALTOROS* — Cloud Foundry deployment, training and integration
www.altoros.com

To add more native memory to the JVM provisioned by the buildpack, you
need to change the memory heuristics of the algorithm that generates the
JVM -X memory settings. see
https://github.com/pivotalservices/citigroup/blob/master/java-buildpack/docs/jre-open_jdk_jre.md

One way to increase the amount of native memory and decrease the memory
allocated to the JVM heap is by setting the following env variable

cf set-env spring-music JBP_CONFIG_OPEN_JDK_JRE '[memory_heuristics:
{heap: 65, metaspace: 20}, memory_sizes: {metaspace: 256m..}]'

Here we are changing the increasing the allocation of metaspace from its
default 64m to 256m in JDK 1.8.
This will give more headroom to the native memory. This is an alternative
to setting the MEMORY_LIMIT variable.

-cheers,
Rohit Kelapure


On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 8:47 PM, Amit Gupta <agupta(a)pivotal.io> wrote:

Tweaking the buildpack is less dynamic, and every time you want to make a
change you will have to tweak again, create the new buildpack, and upload
it to the CC. Moreover, maintaining your own fork of the buildpack adds
overhead when you need to consume important changes from the standard
buildpack, such as security updates.

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Siva Balan <mailsiva(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks for the clarification Sabha and Amit. We are using JavaBP and our
usecase is to have additional native memory headroom for the app. One
option is to tweak the open_jdk.yml file in the JavaBP to give more native
memory and reduce the heap in that process or to set this MEMORY_LIMIT env
variable. We are going with setting the MEMORY_LIMIT option.

Regards,
Siva

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Amit Gupta <agupta(a)pivotal.io> wrote:

Ah, I was mistaken. If you set MEMORY_LIMIT, it will not get
overwritten. So if you don't set it, it will be set to the container
memory limit. But if you do set it, then the java buildpack can take
advantage of it in the way Sabha explained.

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Sabha Parameswaran <sabhap(a)pivotal.io>
wrote:

The MEMORY_LIMIT is used by the java buildpack to configure the
various heap parameters for a java app. This variable value is set to the
container size by default by the Cloud controller when you push the app and
JBP uses that to arrive at heap during staging.

What you have done is making the buildpack work with a lower memory
threshold even though the app itself is allowed a higher limit.

Tweak the MEMORY_LIMIT variable only when you are using JavaBP and
want to really have some additional native memory headroom to grow (due to
native memory usage or safety concerns) or to limit heap from utilizing the
full container memory size.

As Amit mentioned, always use cf scale option to change the memory or
instance count for the app container.

-Sabha

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Siva Balan <mailsiva(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks for the response. But what I am observing is, by setting
MEMORY_LIMIT as an environment variable does take effect when I restage the
app and it reduces the memory allocated to the java app(not the container
itself) to the amount set in the variable. The app is restarted with the
same heap ratio as dictated by the buildpack but assumes the max memory
available to it is now 1GB instead of 2GB. The container still had 2GB
allocated to it and I understand that will be reduced only if I use the "cf
scale" command.
Is this the expected behavior?

Thanks
Siva

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Amit Gupta <agupta(a)pivotal.io> wrote:

This is not a environment variable you can set. To scale down the
memory allocated to your instances, do

cf scale <app-name> -m 1024M

This will tell Warden/Garden to allocate that much memory to your
containers and kill them if they exceed it. The documentation is saying
that the processes running inside the container can learn about the memory
limit applied to them via the environment variable MEMORY_LIMIT. If you
try to set this variable via set-env, it will get overwritten by the value
set by "cf scale". Again, the MEMORY_LIMIT environment variable doesn't do
anything, it's just information passed into the container via the process's
environment. To actually constrain the memory, use "cf scale" or set it in
your manifest file:


https://docs.cloudfoundry.org/devguide/deploy-apps/manifest.html#memory

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Siva Balan <mailsiva(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

We are not using Diego and we are on CF version 211.
I had my application started with 2GB of memory set in the manifest
file. I then ran the following command and restaged the app:
cf set-env <app-name> MEMORY_LIMIT 1024m
Then when I ran "cf app <app-name>", it was still showing the
instance memory of 2GB but the heap size allocated to the application was
cut in half and I confirmed this through New Relic app. Also, the first
full GC of the app occurred when the memory of the instance was at 1.3GB.
So I am not quite sure of the description of the MEMORY_LIMIT env variable
as described in
http://docs.run.pivotal.io/devguide/deploy-apps/environment-variable.html#memory.
I did not see my application restart when the instance memory went over
1GB.
Any ideas about this behavior?

Thanks.
Siva

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 7:40 PM, Amit Gupta <agupta(a)pivotal.io>
wrote:

Responses inline.

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Tom Sherrod <tom.sherrod(a)gmail.com

wrote:

What is the default memory size of an app deployed in diego? cf
apps indicate 1GB.

Yes. This isn't a diego thing, this is a CC thing.

cf set-env doesn't appear to be getting the environment variable
information to the running container. Is cf set-env the correct method to
use?

You likely need to restage the application for ENV var changes to
take effect. Unless I'm mistaken, this too is not diego-specific, and
applies to DEA containers as well.

Thanks!
Tom

Best,
Amit

--
http://www.twitter.com/sivabalans

--
http://www.twitter.com/sivabalans

--
Pivotal CF Architect
rkelapure(a)pivotal.io
cell: 9197242524

Tweaking the buildpack is less dynamic, and every time you want to make a
change you will have to tweak again, create the new buildpack, and upload
it to the CC. Moreover, maintaining your own fork of the buildpack adds
overhead when you need to consume important changes from the standard
buildpack, such as security updates.

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Siva Balan <mailsiva(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks for the clarification Sabha and Amit. We are using JavaBP and our
usecase is to have additional native memory headroom for the app. One
option is to tweak the open_jdk.yml file in the JavaBP to give more native
memory and reduce the heap in that process or to set this MEMORY_LIMIT env
variable. We are going with setting the MEMORY_LIMIT option.

Regards,
Siva

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Amit Gupta <agupta(a)pivotal.io> wrote:

Ah, I was mistaken. If you set MEMORY_LIMIT, it will not get
overwritten. So if you don't set it, it will be set to the container
memory limit. But if you do set it, then the java buildpack can take
advantage of it in the way Sabha explained.

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Sabha Parameswaran <sabhap(a)pivotal.io>
wrote:

The MEMORY_LIMIT is used by the java buildpack to configure the various
heap parameters for a java app. This variable value is set to the container
size by default by the Cloud controller when you push the app and JBP uses
that to arrive at heap during staging.

What you have done is making the buildpack work with a lower memory
threshold even though the app itself is allowed a higher limit.

Tweak the MEMORY_LIMIT variable only when you are using JavaBP and want
to really have some additional native memory headroom to grow (due to
native memory usage or safety concerns) or to limit heap from utilizing the
full container memory size.

As Amit mentioned, always use cf scale option to change the memory or
instance count for the app container.

-Sabha

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Siva Balan <mailsiva(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks for the response. But what I am observing is, by setting
MEMORY_LIMIT as an environment variable does take effect when I restage the
app and it reduces the memory allocated to the java app(not the container
itself) to the amount set in the variable. The app is restarted with the
same heap ratio as dictated by the buildpack but assumes the max memory
available to it is now 1GB instead of 2GB. The container still had 2GB
allocated to it and I understand that will be reduced only if I use the "cf
scale" command.
Is this the expected behavior?

Thanks
Siva

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Amit Gupta <agupta(a)pivotal.io> wrote:

This is not a environment variable you can set. To scale down the
memory allocated to your instances, do

cf scale <app-name> -m 1024M

This will tell Warden/Garden to allocate that much memory to your
containers and kill them if they exceed it. The documentation is saying
that the processes running inside the container can learn about the memory
limit applied to them via the environment variable MEMORY_LIMIT. If you
try to set this variable via set-env, it will get overwritten by the value
set by "cf scale". Again, the MEMORY_LIMIT environment variable doesn't do
anything, it's just information passed into the container via the process's
environment. To actually constrain the memory, use "cf scale" or set it in
your manifest file:


https://docs.cloudfoundry.org/devguide/deploy-apps/manifest.html#memory

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Siva Balan <mailsiva(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

We are not using Diego and we are on CF version 211.
I had my application started with 2GB of memory set in the manifest
file. I then ran the following command and restaged the app:
cf set-env <app-name> MEMORY_LIMIT 1024m
Then when I ran "cf app <app-name>", it was still showing the
instance memory of 2GB but the heap size allocated to the application was
cut in half and I confirmed this through New Relic app. Also, the first
full GC of the app occurred when the memory of the instance was at 1.3GB.
So I am not quite sure of the description of the MEMORY_LIMIT env variable
as described in
http://docs.run.pivotal.io/devguide/deploy-apps/environment-variable.html#memory.
I did not see my application restart when the instance memory went over
1GB.
Any ideas about this behavior?

Thanks.
Siva

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 7:40 PM, Amit Gupta <agupta(a)pivotal.io>
wrote:

Responses inline.

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Tom Sherrod <tom.sherrod(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

What is the default memory size of an app deployed in diego? cf
apps indicate 1GB.

Yes. This isn't a diego thing, this is a CC thing.

cf set-env doesn't appear to be getting the environment variable
information to the running container. Is cf set-env the correct method to
use?

You likely need to restage the application for ENV var changes to
take effect. Unless I'm mistaken, this too is not diego-specific, and
applies to DEA containers as well.

Thanks!
Tom

Best,
Amit

--
http://www.twitter.com/sivabalans

--
http://www.twitter.com/sivabalans

Tweaking the buildpack is less dynamic, and every time you want to make a
change you will have to tweak again, create the new buildpack, and upload
it to the CC. Moreover, maintaining your own fork of the buildpack adds
overhead when you need to consume important changes from the standard
buildpack, such as security updates.

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Siva Balan <mailsiva(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks for the clarification Sabha and Amit. We are using JavaBP and our
usecase is to have additional native memory headroom for the app. One
option is to tweak the open_jdk.yml file in the JavaBP to give more native
memory and reduce the heap in that process or to set this MEMORY_LIMIT env
variable. We are going with setting the MEMORY_LIMIT option.

Regards,
Siva

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Amit Gupta <agupta(a)pivotal.io> wrote:

Ah, I was mistaken. If you set MEMORY_LIMIT, it will not get
overwritten. So if you don't set it, it will be set to the container
memory limit. But if you do set it, then the java buildpack can take
advantage of it in the way Sabha explained.

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Sabha Parameswaran <sabhap(a)pivotal.io>
wrote:

The MEMORY_LIMIT is used by the java buildpack to configure the various
heap parameters for a java app. This variable value is set to the container
size by default by the Cloud controller when you push the app and JBP uses
that to arrive at heap during staging.

What you have done is making the buildpack work with a lower memory
threshold even though the app itself is allowed a higher limit.

Tweak the MEMORY_LIMIT variable only when you are using JavaBP and want
to really have some additional native memory headroom to grow (due to
native memory usage or safety concerns) or to limit heap from utilizing the
full container memory size.

As Amit mentioned, always use cf scale option to change the memory or
instance count for the app container.

-Sabha

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Siva Balan <mailsiva(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks for the response. But what I am observing is, by setting
MEMORY_LIMIT as an environment variable does take effect when I restage the
app and it reduces the memory allocated to the java app(not the container
itself) to the amount set in the variable. The app is restarted with the
same heap ratio as dictated by the buildpack but assumes the max memory
available to it is now 1GB instead of 2GB. The container still had 2GB
allocated to it and I understand that will be reduced only if I use the "cf
scale" command.
Is this the expected behavior?

Thanks
Siva

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Amit Gupta <agupta(a)pivotal.io> wrote:

This is not a environment variable you can set. To scale down the
memory allocated to your instances, do

cf scale <app-name> -m 1024M

This will tell Warden/Garden to allocate that much memory to your
containers and kill them if they exceed it. The documentation is saying
that the processes running inside the container can learn about the memory
limit applied to them via the environment variable MEMORY_LIMIT. If you
try to set this variable via set-env, it will get overwritten by the value
set by "cf scale". Again, the MEMORY_LIMIT environment variable doesn't do
anything, it's just information passed into the container via the process's
environment. To actually constrain the memory, use "cf scale" or set it in
your manifest file:


https://docs.cloudfoundry.org/devguide/deploy-apps/manifest.html#memory

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Siva Balan <mailsiva(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

We are not using Diego and we are on CF version 211.
I had my application started with 2GB of memory set in the manifest
file. I then ran the following command and restaged the app:
cf set-env <app-name> MEMORY_LIMIT 1024m
Then when I ran "cf app <app-name>", it was still showing the
instance memory of 2GB but the heap size allocated to the application was
cut in half and I confirmed this through New Relic app. Also, the first
full GC of the app occurred when the memory of the instance was at 1.3GB.
So I am not quite sure of the description of the MEMORY_LIMIT env variable
as described in
http://docs.run.pivotal.io/devguide/deploy-apps/environment-variable.html#memory.
I did not see my application restart when the instance memory went over
1GB.
Any ideas about this behavior?

Thanks.
Siva

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 7:40 PM, Amit Gupta <agupta(a)pivotal.io>
wrote:

Responses inline.

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Tom Sherrod <tom.sherrod(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

What is the default memory size of an app deployed in diego? cf
apps indicate 1GB.

Yes. This isn't a diego thing, this is a CC thing.

cf set-env doesn't appear to be getting the environment variable
information to the running container. Is cf set-env the correct method to
use?

You likely need to restage the application for ENV var changes to
take effect. Unless I'm mistaken, this too is not diego-specific, and
applies to DEA containers as well.

Thanks!
Tom

Best,
Amit

--
http://www.twitter.com/sivabalans

--
http://www.twitter.com/sivabalans

Thanks for the clarification Sabha and Amit. We are using JavaBP and our
usecase is to have additional native memory headroom for the app. One
option is to tweak the open_jdk.yml file in the JavaBP to give more native
memory and reduce the heap in that process or to set this MEMORY_LIMIT env
variable. We are going with setting the MEMORY_LIMIT option.

Regards,
Siva

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Amit Gupta <agupta(a)pivotal.io> wrote:

Ah, I was mistaken. If you set MEMORY_LIMIT, it will not get
overwritten. So if you don't set it, it will be set to the container
memory limit. But if you do set it, then the java buildpack can take
advantage of it in the way Sabha explained.

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Sabha Parameswaran <sabhap(a)pivotal.io>
wrote:

The MEMORY_LIMIT is used by the java buildpack to configure the various
heap parameters for a java app. This variable value is set to the container
size by default by the Cloud controller when you push the app and JBP uses
that to arrive at heap during staging.

What you have done is making the buildpack work with a lower memory
threshold even though the app itself is allowed a higher limit.

Tweak the MEMORY_LIMIT variable only when you are using JavaBP and want
to really have some additional native memory headroom to grow (due to
native memory usage or safety concerns) or to limit heap from utilizing the
full container memory size.

As Amit mentioned, always use cf scale option to change the memory or
instance count for the app container.

-Sabha

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Siva Balan <mailsiva(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks for the response. But what I am observing is, by setting
MEMORY_LIMIT as an environment variable does take effect when I restage the
app and it reduces the memory allocated to the java app(not the container
itself) to the amount set in the variable. The app is restarted with the
same heap ratio as dictated by the buildpack but assumes the max memory
available to it is now 1GB instead of 2GB. The container still had 2GB
allocated to it and I understand that will be reduced only if I use the "cf
scale" command.
Is this the expected behavior?

Thanks
Siva

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Amit Gupta <agupta(a)pivotal.io> wrote:

This is not a environment variable you can set. To scale down the
memory allocated to your instances, do

cf scale <app-name> -m 1024M

This will tell Warden/Garden to allocate that much memory to your
containers and kill them if they exceed it. The documentation is saying
that the processes running inside the container can learn about the memory
limit applied to them via the environment variable MEMORY_LIMIT. If you
try to set this variable via set-env, it will get overwritten by the value
set by "cf scale". Again, the MEMORY_LIMIT environment variable doesn't do
anything, it's just information passed into the container via the process's
environment. To actually constrain the memory, use "cf scale" or set it in
your manifest file:

https://docs.cloudfoundry.org/devguide/deploy-apps/manifest.html#memory

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Siva Balan <mailsiva(a)gmail.com> wrote:

We are not using Diego and we are on CF version 211.
I had my application started with 2GB of memory set in the manifest
file. I then ran the following command and restaged the app:
cf set-env <app-name> MEMORY_LIMIT 1024m
Then when I ran "cf app <app-name>", it was still showing the
instance memory of 2GB but the heap size allocated to the application was
cut in half and I confirmed this through New Relic app. Also, the first
full GC of the app occurred when the memory of the instance was at 1.3GB.
So I am not quite sure of the description of the MEMORY_LIMIT env variable
as described in
http://docs.run.pivotal.io/devguide/deploy-apps/environment-variable.html#memory.
I did not see my application restart when the instance memory went over
1GB.
Any ideas about this behavior?

Thanks.
Siva

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 7:40 PM, Amit Gupta <agupta(a)pivotal.io> wrote:

Responses inline.

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Tom Sherrod <tom.sherrod(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

What is the default memory size of an app deployed in diego? cf
apps indicate 1GB.

Yes. This isn't a diego thing, this is a CC thing.

cf set-env doesn't appear to be getting the environment variable
information to the running container. Is cf set-env the correct method to
use?

You likely need to restage the application for ENV var changes to
take effect. Unless I'm mistaken, this too is not diego-specific, and
applies to DEA containers as well.

Thanks!
Tom

Best,
Amit

--
http://www.twitter.com/sivabalans

--
http://www.twitter.com/sivabalans

Ah, I was mistaken. If you set MEMORY_LIMIT, it will not get
overwritten. So if you don't set it, it will be set to the container
memory limit. But if you do set it, then the java buildpack can take
advantage of it in the way Sabha explained.

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Sabha Parameswaran <sabhap(a)pivotal.io>
wrote:

The MEMORY_LIMIT is used by the java buildpack to configure the various
heap parameters for a java app. This variable value is set to the container
size by default by the Cloud controller when you push the app and JBP uses
that to arrive at heap during staging.

What you have done is making the buildpack work with a lower memory
threshold even though the app itself is allowed a higher limit.

Tweak the MEMORY_LIMIT variable only when you are using JavaBP and want
to really have some additional native memory headroom to grow (due to
native memory usage or safety concerns) or to limit heap from utilizing the
full container memory size.

As Amit mentioned, always use cf scale option to change the memory or
instance count for the app container.

-Sabha

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Siva Balan <mailsiva(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks for the response. But what I am observing is, by setting
MEMORY_LIMIT as an environment variable does take effect when I restage the
app and it reduces the memory allocated to the java app(not the container
itself) to the amount set in the variable. The app is restarted with the
same heap ratio as dictated by the buildpack but assumes the max memory
available to it is now 1GB instead of 2GB. The container still had 2GB
allocated to it and I understand that will be reduced only if I use the "cf
scale" command.
Is this the expected behavior?

Thanks
Siva

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Amit Gupta <agupta(a)pivotal.io> wrote:

This is not a environment variable you can set. To scale down the
memory allocated to your instances, do

cf scale <app-name> -m 1024M

This will tell Warden/Garden to allocate that much memory to your
containers and kill them if they exceed it. The documentation is saying
that the processes running inside the container can learn about the memory
limit applied to them via the environment variable MEMORY_LIMIT. If you
try to set this variable via set-env, it will get overwritten by the value
set by "cf scale". Again, the MEMORY_LIMIT environment variable doesn't do
anything, it's just information passed into the container via the process's
environment. To actually constrain the memory, use "cf scale" or set it in
your manifest file:

https://docs.cloudfoundry.org/devguide/deploy-apps/manifest.html#memory

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Siva Balan <mailsiva(a)gmail.com> wrote:

We are not using Diego and we are on CF version 211.
I had my application started with 2GB of memory set in the manifest
file. I then ran the following command and restaged the app:
cf set-env <app-name> MEMORY_LIMIT 1024m
Then when I ran "cf app <app-name>", it was still showing the instance
memory of 2GB but the heap size allocated to the application was cut in
half and I confirmed this through New Relic app. Also, the first full GC of
the app occurred when the memory of the instance was at 1.3GB. So I am not
quite sure of the description of the MEMORY_LIMIT env variable as described
in
http://docs.run.pivotal.io/devguide/deploy-apps/environment-variable.html#memory.
I did not see my application restart when the instance memory went over
1GB.
Any ideas about this behavior?

Thanks.
Siva

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 7:40 PM, Amit Gupta <agupta(a)pivotal.io> wrote:

Responses inline.

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Tom Sherrod <tom.sherrod(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

What is the default memory size of an app deployed in diego? cf apps
indicate 1GB.

Yes. This isn't a diego thing, this is a CC thing.

cf set-env doesn't appear to be getting the environment variable
information to the running container. Is cf set-env the correct method to
use?

You likely need to restage the application for ENV var changes to
take effect. Unless I'm mistaken, this too is not diego-specific, and
applies to DEA containers as well.

Thanks!
Tom

Best,
Amit

--
http://www.twitter.com/sivabalans

Thanks for the response. But what I am observing is, by setting
MEMORY_LIMIT as an environment variable does take effect when I restage the
app and it reduces the memory allocated to the java app(not the container
itself) to the amount set in the variable. The app is restarted with the
same heap ratio as dictated by the buildpack but assumes the max memory
available to it is now 1GB instead of 2GB. The container still had 2GB
allocated to it and I understand that will be reduced only if I use the "cf
scale" command.
Is this the expected behavior?

Thanks
Siva

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Amit Gupta <agupta(a)pivotal.io> wrote:

This is not a environment variable you can set. To scale down the memory
allocated to your instances, do

cf scale <app-name> -m 1024M

This will tell Warden/Garden to allocate that much memory to your
containers and kill them if they exceed it. The documentation is saying
that the processes running inside the container can learn about the memory
limit applied to them via the environment variable MEMORY_LIMIT. If you
try to set this variable via set-env, it will get overwritten by the value
set by "cf scale". Again, the MEMORY_LIMIT environment variable doesn't do
anything, it's just information passed into the container via the process's
environment. To actually constrain the memory, use "cf scale" or set it in
your manifest file:

https://docs.cloudfoundry.org/devguide/deploy-apps/manifest.html#memory

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Siva Balan <mailsiva(a)gmail.com> wrote:

We are not using Diego and we are on CF version 211.
I had my application started with 2GB of memory set in the manifest
file. I then ran the following command and restaged the app:
cf set-env <app-name> MEMORY_LIMIT 1024m
Then when I ran "cf app <app-name>", it was still showing the instance
memory of 2GB but the heap size allocated to the application was cut in
half and I confirmed this through New Relic app. Also, the first full GC of
the app occurred when the memory of the instance was at 1.3GB. So I am not
quite sure of the description of the MEMORY_LIMIT env variable as described
in
http://docs.run.pivotal.io/devguide/deploy-apps/environment-variable.html#memory.
I did not see my application restart when the instance memory went over
1GB.
Any ideas about this behavior?

Thanks.
Siva

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 7:40 PM, Amit Gupta <agupta(a)pivotal.io> wrote:

Responses inline.

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Tom Sherrod <tom.sherrod(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

What is the default memory size of an app deployed in diego? cf apps
indicate 1GB.

Yes. This isn't a diego thing, this is a CC thing.

cf set-env doesn't appear to be getting the environment variable
information to the running container. Is cf set-env the correct method to
use?

You likely need to restage the application for ENV var changes to take
effect. Unless I'm mistaken, this too is not diego-specific, and applies
to DEA containers as well.

Thanks!
Tom

Best,
Amit

--
http://www.twitter.com/sivabalans

This is not a environment variable you can set. To scale down the memory
allocated to your instances, do

cf scale <app-name> -m 1024M

This will tell Warden/Garden to allocate that much memory to your
containers and kill them if they exceed it. The documentation is saying
that the processes running inside the container can learn about the memory
limit applied to them via the environment variable MEMORY_LIMIT. If you
try to set this variable via set-env, it will get overwritten by the value
set by "cf scale". Again, the MEMORY_LIMIT environment variable doesn't do
anything, it's just information passed into the container via the process's
environment. To actually constrain the memory, use "cf scale" or set it in
your manifest file:

https://docs.cloudfoundry.org/devguide/deploy-apps/manifest.html#memory

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Siva Balan <mailsiva(a)gmail.com> wrote:

We are not using Diego and we are on CF version 211.
I had my application started with 2GB of memory set in the manifest file.
I then ran the following command and restaged the app:
cf set-env <app-name> MEMORY_LIMIT 1024m
Then when I ran "cf app <app-name>", it was still showing the instance
memory of 2GB but the heap size allocated to the application was cut in
half and I confirmed this through New Relic app. Also, the first full GC of
the app occurred when the memory of the instance was at 1.3GB. So I am not
quite sure of the description of the MEMORY_LIMIT env variable as described
in
http://docs.run.pivotal.io/devguide/deploy-apps/environment-variable.html#memory.
I did not see my application restart when the instance memory went over
1GB.
Any ideas about this behavior?

Thanks.
Siva

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 7:40 PM, Amit Gupta <agupta(a)pivotal.io> wrote:

Responses inline.

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Tom Sherrod <tom.sherrod(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

What is the default memory size of an app deployed in diego? cf apps
indicate 1GB.

Yes. This isn't a diego thing, this is a CC thing.

cf set-env doesn't appear to be getting the environment variable
information to the running container. Is cf set-env the correct method to
use?

You likely need to restage the application for ENV var changes to take
effect. Unless I'm mistaken, this too is not diego-specific, and applies
to DEA containers as well.

Thanks!
Tom

Best,
Amit