Hi all,

We're pleased to confirm that there'll be an Unconference at Basel again this year at 6pm on Tuesday 9th October.

We're planning on the same rough schedule as last year, so talks interspersed with open space sessions, topped off by something fun at the end. Oh, plus free food and beer.

Things we need from y'all:

• Talks! We'd love for you folks to present, ideally for <= 10 minutes.
  
• Suggestions! Would you like to do another pub quiz? Do you have any other ideas?
  
• Sign-ups! If you're coming, please sign up so we know how much food and drink to order.

You can find all the details on the Meetup page.

If you'd like to give a talk, please reply to me, Sara Lenz and Ivana Scott (CC'd).

Regards,

Daniel 'Deejay' Jones - CTO

+44 (0)79 8000 9153

@DanielJonesEB

EngineerBetter Ltd - More than Cloud Foundry specialists

Dear Jesse,

 

did anything come out of this proposal? Did you end up picking up this track of work?

 

Warm regards

Marco

 

From: <cf-dev@...> on behalf of Marco Voelz <marco.voelz@...>
Reply-To: "cf-dev@..." <cf-dev@...>
Date: Tuesday, 8. May 2018 at 10:08
To: "cf-dev@..." <cf-dev@...>, Dmitriy Kalinin <dkalinin@...>
Subject: [CAUTION] Re: [cf-dev] Proposed BOSH logging interface

 

Dear Jesse,

 

Thanks for putting this proposal out there. We would be happy to see an automated logfile forwarding mechanism. Here's a couple of comments on your initial points:

* Including the filename in the syslog metadata is very useful and something we'd really like to have. Currently it is something we're working around a bit.

* The appname/tag field should probably contain the release's name as well as a prefix. My proposal here is `<deployment name>.<instance group name>.<job name>`. wdyt?

* We haven't made any particular use of the priority field, so losing control over this field wouldn't matter for out use-cases. Severity is usually something that the actual log message needs to contain, as the logger's severity can only be set on its initial creation, afaik.

* Restricting the depth of recursion seems reasonable. So far, I don't think we're using bosh releases which have more than 1 folder below their /var/vcap/sys/log/<job name>/ folder.

 

Concerning the requirements about permissions on the logfiles you'd want to forward: Did you talk to Dmitriy/the BOSH team about this? With stemcell series 3541.x the permissions on the standard folders below /var/vcap were tightened a bit, so just wanted to make sure that your assumptions are in line with the upcoming changes in the stemcells.

 

Warm regards

Marco

---

From: cf-dev@... <cf-dev@...> on behalf of Jesse T. Alford <jalford@...>
Sent: Tuesday, April 3, 2018 12:55:38 AM
To: cf-dev@...
Subject: [cf-dev] Proposed BOSH logging interface

 

Hello! We're the CF Platform Logging team. We maintain `syslog-release` and have been working to improve and regularize platform logging behavior.

 

This is a proposal intended to establish reasonable expectations about what should be logged and what should be forwarded in bosh-deployed cloud systems.

 

Historically, it has been up to each release to provide for their log forwarding, if any. We intend `syslog-release` to provide a consistent interface useful enough to replace all other provisions for the forwarding of logs from bosh jobs.

 

## Proposed Interface

If log forwarding is enabled, some files in `/var/vcap/sys/log` (and its subdirectories, recursively), will have any line written to them forwarded as the MSG portion of an RFC5424 compliant syslog message. Which files are forwarded is governed first by file extension, and secondarily by file permissions.

 

`syslog-release` attempts to read any file ending in `.log`.

(This allows us to avoid forwarding rotated logs, swapfiles, etc.)

It will forward from such files if either of the following are true:

- it is world-readable

- it is readable to the `vcap` group

 

In particular, this means that logs will not be forwarded from files where:

- user and group are root:root

- user and group are vcap:root or vcap:none

- user and group are vcap:vcap, but it is not group-readable

 

…unless they are world-readable.

 

We think that this interface will allow us to avoid running a log forwarder with elevated permissions, while also allowing jobs to, for instance, write DEBUG or similar logs to a file that is not group-readable, thus improving their security and reducing the load on the logging system while still making them available on the ephemeral disk for debugging purposes.

 

## Questions

There are a couple of things around this interface we're especially interested in feedback on, in addition to the obvious "will this be a problem for you" overall question.

 

We may have to have a proviso that the depth of this is not unlimited. This depends somewhat on what is inexpensive to implement and maintain, and is an area we'd appreciate feedback on. Is three levels deep from `/var/vcap/sys/log` (i.e. `/var/vcap/sys/log/jobname/processname/*`) enough? Would four be?

 

In the old way of doing things, more control over the PRI information and other syslog fields was available to release authors. Logs forwarded from files currently all come out as PRI 14, which translates to Facility: User, Severity: Info. Additionally, the appname/tag field is set to the name of the directory containing the log file. Is this enough/good info? If we were to include the filename, too, would that be useful? Sufficient?

 

## Testing with the Proposed Interface

We have recently implemented a feature to help release authors evaluate the proposed interface. If you set `syslog.respect_file_permissions: true`, blackbox will not be run with elevated capabilities, and you'll be able to see what is and isn't forwarded under the proposed interface.

As the previous project lead for RelInt, I want to speak to Marco's concerns directly. We _definitely_ considered the operator as an important persona during any decision-making; if anything, we were overcommitted to that persona, evidenced by the fact that we became at times an obstacle to CFF dev teams out of fear of making a breaking changes for operators.

There's clearly some concern that operators won't be able to keep up with breaking changes. However, one impact of making breaking changes more frequently -- and, even better, on a schedule -- is to reduce the difficulty of adapting to them. To build a bit on what Josh said earlier in his example about cf-networking 2.0, as we pushed off releasing a major version of cf-deployment, more backwards-incompatible updates were stockpiled in the backlog. In the end, cf-deployment 2.0 included **seven** breaking changes instead of merely one or two.

To link this back to Marco's story -- "As an operator of CF, I'd like to consume CVE fixes with as little changes to my existing installation as possible, such that I close known vulnerabilities as soon as possible" -- this is already a problem with cf-deployment. As others have mentioned, there's no back-porting of cf-deployment after major version bumps, so operators already have to accommodate breaking changes in order to get CVE fixes. I understand that the proposal means that this happens more often, but it also means that major version bumps will be more predictable and less risky.[0]

I wasn't sure if it was worth rehashing the days of cf-release or not, but since Jesse broached the subject, I'd give his comments a +1 all around. One of the ways I understood Josh's proposal was as an important course correction. If cf-release was too free-wheeling in making breaking changes, cf-deployment has been too conservative. The proposal for a regular cadence of breaking changes seems like a balance between those two. Similarly, this is a re-balancing with regards to the personas as well: based on experience, the RelInt team has learned that it should be more willing to release breaking changes for operators in order to empower the CFF dev teams.

Sabeti

Also _formerly_ of the RelInt team

[0] Bernd has an interesting point about providing patch updates only to the latest release of cf-deployment, as a way to provide operators with a CVE-fix-only release. Providing such releases is also non-trivial work that I'm not sure the RelInt team would prioritize. Also, RelInt ships minor releases twice per week, so the changesets are typically small. Still, it seems a bit more palatable than any kind of LTS because it assists operators in living up to the "you better run fast."

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:59 AM Krannich, Bernd <bernd.krannich@...> wrote:

I was about to mention that I indeed enjoyed the existing CF model of releases which roughly translated to “you better run fast” for consumers.

 

The thing I found needed some tweaking in the existing model was the approach to including fixes for prio very high CVEs. Often times, in our quest to run fast and keep systems secure as fast as possible, we ended up pulling in a bunch of features which required additional validation and essentially slowed us down in our effort of rolling things out to production.

 

I felt that the better approach to support people that can keep the speed would have been to always provide fixes for prio very high CVEs as cherry-picks based on the latest released version (and then of course also include those fixes into the next “regular” release, too).

 

Based on the comments so far, it sounds like for consumers “you better run fast” will actually be harder with the newly proposed approach. But maybe I’m not fully understanding the concepts, so it would be great to get some more details on the plans.

 

Regards,

Bernd

 

From: <cf-dev@...> on behalf of Chip Childers <cchilders@...>
Reply-To: "cf-dev@..." <cf-dev@...>
Date: Wednesday, 18. July 2018 at 19:38
To: "cf-dev@..." <cf-dev@...>

Subject: Re: [cf-dev] cf-deployment 3.0

 

Food for thought: One of the challenges here is that maintaining patches for past coordinated releases is expensive (both in time and CI costs). In the CF ecosystem, this has traditionally been the responsibility of the downstream commercial distributions.

 

This isn't to say that there isn't a solution that can help all downstream users (including non-commercial users AND the distros), yet not burden the Rel Int team too much. I'm not sure what that solution is though...

 

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 9:47 AM Franks, Geoff <geoff.franks@...> wrote:

I’m going to agree with Marco’s concerns here. Making life harder and less stable for the end users of CF has a real potential to alienate and push away the CF userbase altogether, even if it’s just in appearance (seeing monthly major releases of a product may cause new organizations to hesitate to migrate, until the release process appears more stable.

 

 

From: <cf-dev@...> on behalf of Marco Voelz <marco.voelz@...>
Reply-To: "cf-dev@..." <cf-dev@...>
Date: Monday, July 16, 2018 at 1:34 AM
To: "cf-dev@..." <cf-dev@...>
Subject: [External] Re: [cf-dev] cf-deployment 3.0

 

Dear Josh,

 

Thanks for the context, I wasn't aware of what happened before the release of networking 2.0. To stick with your example, though: From what you are saying I have understood that you would rather have done it this way – please correct me here if I'm wrong:

• integrate networking release 2.0 into cf-deployment, 
• integrate other PRs with breaking changes
• bumping cf-deployment to a new major version, given above changes
• merging the CVE fixes only into the new major version of cf-deployment

 

With this process, you would have achieved the following:

• the development teams are happy, because they shipped as soon as they were ready to
• operators are grumpy, because they have to bump networking to a new major version and adopt to other breaking changes in order to fix CVEs

 

I'm not saying you have to turn this tradeoff the other way around, but in my opinion this doesn't seem very consumer friendly. 

 

In your team's mission, you have clearly stated that your goal is to enable development teams to maintain a high velocity. I'd like to stress that we shouldn't leave the operators and users out of the picture here. In the end, you're developing for them, not for yourself. 

 

I'm not sure if the consumer/operator persona is a thing for RelInt, but if that's the case, here's something I'd like to hold true for whatever change RelInt makes to their process:

"As an operator of CF, I'd like to consume CVE fixes with as little changes to my existing installation as possible, such that I close known vulnerabilities as soon as possible"

 

Does that sound reasonable?

 

Warm regards

Marco

---

From: cf-dev@... <cf-dev@...> on behalf of Josh Collins <jcollins@...>
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 11:39:30 PM
To: cf-dev@...
Subject: Re: [cf-dev] cf-deployment 3.0

 

Hi Marco,

I'm happy to provide more context on the container networking 2.0 reference.
The container networking team submitted a PR to cf-deployment with changes required for them to ship v2.0. 
RelInt deferred the container networking team's PR for a few weeks due to competing priorities including multiple CVE's fixes.
During the deferral time, a few other PRs were submitted which included breaking changes.
These additional changes took much more time to integrate and validate than anticipated and in the end, the container networking team's 2.0 release was published in cf-d about 5 weeks after it was ready to go.
The introduction of a regular cadence aims to mitigate this type of delay in the future. Had we had one at the time, the networking team would have timed it's PR to align and we would have been poised to accept and publish it quickly.
We believe this will help teams confidently plan for, communicate about, and negotiate integrating their releases into cf-deployment.
And hopefully enable the RelInt team to integrate and ship major releases more seamlessly.

This is an evolving process so we'll see how things roll in the coming months and make adjustments where it makes sense to do so. 
I appreciate and welcome any and all feedback along the way.

Thanks very much,

Josh

--

Chip Childers
CTO, Cloud Foundry Foundation
1.267.250.0815

I was about to mention that I indeed enjoyed the existing CF model of releases which roughly translated to “you better run fast” for consumers.

 

The thing I found needed some tweaking in the existing model was the approach to including fixes for prio very high CVEs. Often times, in our quest to run fast and keep systems secure as fast as possible, we ended up pulling in a bunch of features which required additional validation and essentially slowed us down in our effort of rolling things out to production.

 

I felt that the better approach to support people that can keep the speed would have been to always provide fixes for prio very high CVEs as cherry-picks based on the latest released version (and then of course also include those fixes into the next “regular” release, too).

 

Based on the comments so far, it sounds like for consumers “you better run fast” will actually be harder with the newly proposed approach. But maybe I’m not fully understanding the concepts, so it would be great to get some more details on the plans.

 

Regards,

Bernd

 

From: <cf-dev@...> on behalf of Chip Childers <cchilders@...>
Reply-To: "cf-dev@..." <cf-dev@...>
Date: Wednesday, 18. July 2018 at 19:38
To: "cf-dev@..." <cf-dev@...>

Subject: Re: [cf-dev] cf-deployment 3.0

 

Food for thought: One of the challenges here is that maintaining patches for past coordinated releases is expensive (both in time and CI costs). In the CF ecosystem, this has traditionally been the responsibility of the downstream commercial distributions.

 

This isn't to say that there isn't a solution that can help all downstream users (including non-commercial users AND the distros), yet not burden the Rel Int team too much. I'm not sure what that solution is though...

 

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 9:47 AM Franks, Geoff <geoff.franks@...> wrote:

I’m going to agree with Marco’s concerns here. Making life harder and less stable for the end users of CF has a real potential to alienate and push away the CF userbase altogether, even if it’s just in appearance (seeing monthly major releases of a product may cause new organizations to hesitate to migrate, until the release process appears more stable.

 

 

From: <cf-dev@...> on behalf of Marco Voelz <marco.voelz@...>
Reply-To: "cf-dev@..." <cf-dev@...>
Date: Monday, July 16, 2018 at 1:34 AM
To: "cf-dev@..." <cf-dev@...>
Subject: [External] Re: [cf-dev] cf-deployment 3.0

 

Dear Josh,

 

Thanks for the context, I wasn't aware of what happened before the release of networking 2.0. To stick with your example, though: From what you are saying I have understood that you would rather have done it this way – please correct me here if I'm wrong:

• integrate networking release 2.0 into cf-deployment, 
• integrate other PRs with breaking changes
• bumping cf-deployment to a new major version, given above changes
• merging the CVE fixes only into the new major version of cf-deployment

 

With this process, you would have achieved the following:

• the development teams are happy, because they shipped as soon as they were ready to
• operators are grumpy, because they have to bump networking to a new major version and adopt to other breaking changes in order to fix CVEs

 

I'm not saying you have to turn this tradeoff the other way around, but in my opinion this doesn't seem very consumer friendly. 

 

In your team's mission, you have clearly stated that your goal is to enable development teams to maintain a high velocity. I'd like to stress that we shouldn't leave the operators and users out of the picture here. In the end, you're developing for them, not for yourself. 

 

I'm not sure if the consumer/operator persona is a thing for RelInt, but if that's the case, here's something I'd like to hold true for whatever change RelInt makes to their process:

"As an operator of CF, I'd like to consume CVE fixes with as little changes to my existing installation as possible, such that I close known vulnerabilities as soon as possible"

 

Does that sound reasonable?

 

Warm regards

Marco

---

From: cf-dev@... <cf-dev@...> on behalf of Josh Collins <jcollins@...>
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 11:39:30 PM
To: cf-dev@...
Subject: Re: [cf-dev] cf-deployment 3.0

 

Hi Marco,

I'm happy to provide more context on the container networking 2.0 reference.
The container networking team submitted a PR to cf-deployment with changes required for them to ship v2.0. 
RelInt deferred the container networking team's PR for a few weeks due to competing priorities including multiple CVE's fixes.
During the deferral time, a few other PRs were submitted which included breaking changes.
These additional changes took much more time to integrate and validate than anticipated and in the end, the container networking team's 2.0 release was published in cf-d about 5 weeks after it was ready to go.
The introduction of a regular cadence aims to mitigate this type of delay in the future. Had we had one at the time, the networking team would have timed it's PR to align and we would have been poised to accept and publish it quickly.
We believe this will help teams confidently plan for, communicate about, and negotiate integrating their releases into cf-deployment.
And hopefully enable the RelInt team to integrate and ship major releases more seamlessly.

This is an evolving process so we'll see how things roll in the coming months and make adjustments where it makes sense to do so. 
I appreciate and welcome any and all feedback along the way.

Thanks very much,

Josh

--

Chip Childers
CTO, Cloud Foundry Foundation
1.267.250.0815

Food for thought: One of the challenges here is that maintaining patches for past coordinated releases is expensive (both in time and CI costs). In the CF ecosystem, this has traditionally been the responsibility of the downstream commercial distributions.

This isn't to say that there isn't a solution that can help all downstream users (including non-commercial users AND the distros), yet not burden the Rel Int team too much. I'm not sure what that solution is though...

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 9:47 AM Franks, Geoff <geoff.franks@...> wrote:

I’m going to agree with Marco’s concerns here. Making life harder and less stable for the end users of CF has a real potential to alienate and push away the CF userbase altogether, even if it’s just in appearance (seeing monthly major releases of a product may cause new organizations to hesitate to migrate, until the release process appears more stable.

 

 

From: <cf-dev@...> on behalf of Marco Voelz <marco.voelz@...>
Reply-To: "cf-dev@..." <cf-dev@...>
Date: Monday, July 16, 2018 at 1:34 AM
To: "cf-dev@..." <cf-dev@...>
Subject: [External] Re: [cf-dev] cf-deployment 3.0

 

Dear Josh,

 

Thanks for the context, I wasn't aware of what happened before the release of networking 2.0. To stick with your example, though: From what you are saying I have understood that you would rather have done it this way – please correct me here if I'm wrong:

• integrate networking release 2.0 into cf-deployment, 
• integrate other PRs with breaking changes
• bumping cf-deployment to a new major version, given above changes
• merging the CVE fixes only into the new major version of cf-deployment

 

With this process, you would have achieved the following:

• the development teams are happy, because they shipped as soon as they were ready to
• operators are grumpy, because they have to bump networking to a new major version and adopt to other breaking changes in order to fix CVEs

 

I'm not saying you have to turn this tradeoff the other way around, but in my opinion this doesn't seem very consumer friendly. 

 

In your team's mission, you have clearly stated that your goal is to enable development teams to maintain a high velocity. I'd like to stress that we shouldn't leave the operators and users out of the picture here. In the end, you're developing for them, not for yourself. 

 

I'm not sure if the consumer/operator persona is a thing for RelInt, but if that's the case, here's something I'd like to hold true for whatever change RelInt makes to their process:

"As an operator of CF, I'd like to consume CVE fixes with as little changes to my existing installation as possible, such that I close known vulnerabilities as soon as possible"

 

Does that sound reasonable?

 

Warm regards

Marco

---

From: cf-dev@... <cf-dev@...> on behalf of Josh Collins <jcollins@...>
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 11:39:30 PM
To: cf-dev@...
Subject: Re: [cf-dev] cf-deployment 3.0

 

Hi Marco,

I'm happy to provide more context on the container networking 2.0 reference.
The container networking team submitted a PR to cf-deployment with changes required for them to ship v2.0. 
RelInt deferred the container networking team's PR for a few weeks due to competing priorities including multiple CVE's fixes.
During the deferral time, a few other PRs were submitted which included breaking changes.
These additional changes took much more time to integrate and validate than anticipated and in the end, the container networking team's 2.0 release was published in cf-d about 5 weeks after it was ready to go.
The introduction of a regular cadence aims to mitigate this type of delay in the future. Had we had one at the time, the networking team would have timed it's PR to align and we would have been poised to accept and publish it quickly.
We believe this will help teams confidently plan for, communicate about, and negotiate integrating their releases into cf-deployment.
And hopefully enable the RelInt team to integrate and ship major releases more seamlessly.

This is an evolving process so we'll see how things roll in the coming months and make adjustments where it makes sense to do so. 
I appreciate and welcome any and all feedback along the way.

Thanks very much,

Josh

--

Chip Childers
CTO, Cloud Foundry Foundation
1.267.250.0815

I’m going to agree with Marco’s concerns here. Making life harder and less stable for the end users of CF has a real potential to alienate and push away the CF userbase altogether, even if it’s just in appearance (seeing monthly major releases of a product may cause new organizations to hesitate to migrate, until the release process appears more stable.

 

 

From: <cf-dev@...> on behalf of Marco Voelz <marco.voelz@...>
Reply-To: "cf-dev@..." <cf-dev@...>
Date: Monday, July 16, 2018 at 1:34 AM
To: "cf-dev@..." <cf-dev@...>
Subject: [External] Re: [cf-dev] cf-deployment 3.0

 

Dear Josh,

 

Thanks for the context, I wasn't aware of what happened before the release of networking 2.0. To stick with your example, though: From what you are saying I have understood that you would rather have done it this way – please correct me here if I'm wrong:

• integrate networking release 2.0 into cf-deployment, 
• integrate other PRs with breaking changes
• bumping cf-deployment to a new major version, given above changes
• merging the CVE fixes only into the new major version of cf-deployment

 

With this process, you would have achieved the following:

• the development teams are happy, because they shipped as soon as they were ready to
• operators are grumpy, because they have to bump networking to a new major version and adopt to other breaking changes in order to fix CVEs

 

I'm not saying you have to turn this tradeoff the other way around, but in my opinion this doesn't seem very consumer friendly. 

 

In your team's mission, you have clearly stated that your goal is to enable development teams to maintain a high velocity. I'd like to stress that we shouldn't leave the operators and users out of the picture here. In the end, you're developing for them, not for yourself. 

 

I'm not sure if the consumer/operator persona is a thing for RelInt, but if that's the case, here's something I'd like to hold true for whatever change RelInt makes to their process:

"As an operator of CF, I'd like to consume CVE fixes with as little changes to my existing installation as possible, such that I close known vulnerabilities as soon as possible"

 

Does that sound reasonable?

 

Warm regards

Marco

---

From: cf-dev@... <cf-dev@...> on behalf of Josh Collins <jcollins@...>
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 11:39:30 PM
To: cf-dev@...
Subject: Re: [cf-dev] cf-deployment 3.0

 

Hi Marco,

I'm happy to provide more context on the container networking 2.0 reference.
The container networking team submitted a PR to cf-deployment with changes required for them to ship v2.0. 
RelInt deferred the container networking team's PR for a few weeks due to competing priorities including multiple CVE's fixes.
During the deferral time, a few other PRs were submitted which included breaking changes.
These additional changes took much more time to integrate and validate than anticipated and in the end, the container networking team's 2.0 release was published in cf-d about 5 weeks after it was ready to go.
The introduction of a regular cadence aims to mitigate this type of delay in the future. Had we had one at the time, the networking team would have timed it's PR to align and we would have been poised to accept and publish it quickly.
We believe this will help teams confidently plan for, communicate about, and negotiate integrating their releases into cf-deployment.
And hopefully enable the RelInt team to integrate and ship major releases more seamlessly.

This is an evolving process so we'll see how things roll in the coming months and make adjustments where it makes sense to do so. 
I appreciate and welcome any and all feedback along the way.

Thanks very much,

Josh

aaarrgh, there is a bug in my psuedo code

clusterWeight = [v1,v1,v1,v1,v1,v1,v2,v2,v2,v3,v3] should be

clusterWeight = [v1,v1,v1,v1,v1,v1,v2,v2,v2,v3,v4]

Full solution:

Implementation: "Randomized Round Robin" is also super simple [pseudo code follows]

clusterWeight = [v1,v1,v1,v1,v1,v1,v2,v2,v2,v3,v4] //very easy to create based on base1 solution

randomCluster = random(clusterWeight) 

int atomicPointer = 0;

for each request:

  next = atomicPointer.getAndIncrease();

  application = randomCluster[atomicPointer];

On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 8:09 PM Filip Hanik <fhanik@...> wrote:

I put a long comment in the doc, maybe comments are good for short notes. here is the spiel

"The sum of weights must add to 100"

I would say this is where being user friendly ends. If I add reviews-v4 I have to go in and rebalance the whole thing just to figure out how to get to 100.

an alternate solution can be much simpler:

What if you just used a single integer that is relative to the whole cluster. let's call it "base1-lb"

reviews-v1: 6

reviews-v2: 3

reviews-v3: 1

there are two ways to think of this

relative to each other:

In this scenario, v1 gets twice as many requests as v2, and six times as many requests as v3

or in consideration of X requests: (and this is most likely how the code implements it so that it doesn't have to do a lot of math)

This is saying is that for every (total) 10 requests, this is how they distributed.

to add v4

reviews-v1: 6

reviews-v2: 3

reviews-v3: 1

reviews-v4: 1

this is still super simple to look at. v1 gets 6x more than v3/v4, still gets 2x more than v2. I don't have to figure out how to "add up to a 100"

and it's not complicated to calculate either. for every 11 requests:

v1 gets 6

v2 gets 3

v3 gets 1

v4 gets 1

Implementation: "Randomized Round Robin" is also super simple [pseudo code follows]

clusterWeight = [v1,v1,v1,v1,v1,v1,v2,v2,v2,v3,v3] //very easy to create based on base1 solution

randomCluster = random(clusterWeight) 

int atomicPointer = 0;

for each request:

  next = atomicPointer.getAndIncrease();

  application = randomCluster[atomicPointer];

and that's it. the router doesn't have to figure out where the next request goes. This is a simple, elegant and easy to understand solution.

Filip

On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 3:09 PM Shubha Anjur Tupil <sanjurtupil@...> wrote:

The CF Routing team has received feedback from many users that support for weighted routing would make it easier to accomplish their goals. We have a proposal on the preferred user experience for weighted routing and the considerations we have taken into account.

If you have thoughts on this or have experience working with traffic splitting on other platforms, please share your feedback with us. Feel free to comment on the doc or reply here.

Regards,

CF Routing Team

I put a long comment in the doc, maybe comments are good for short notes. here is the spiel

"The sum of weights must add to 100"

I would say this is where being user friendly ends. If I add reviews-v4 I have to go in and rebalance the whole thing just to figure out how to get to 100.

an alternate solution can be much simpler:

What if you just used a single integer that is relative to the whole cluster. let's call it "base1-lb"

reviews-v1: 6

reviews-v2: 3

reviews-v3: 1

there are two ways to think of this

relative to each other:

In this scenario, v1 gets twice as many requests as v2, and six times as many requests as v3

or in consideration of X requests: (and this is most likely how the code implements it so that it doesn't have to do a lot of math)

This is saying is that for every (total) 10 requests, this is how they distributed.

to add v4

reviews-v1: 6

reviews-v2: 3

reviews-v3: 1

reviews-v4: 1

this is still super simple to look at. v1 gets 6x more than v3/v4, still gets 2x more than v2. I don't have to figure out how to "add up to a 100"

and it's not complicated to calculate either. for every 11 requests:

v1 gets 6

v2 gets 3

v3 gets 1

v4 gets 1

Implementation: "Randomized Round Robin" is also super simple [pseudo code follows]

clusterWeight = [v1,v1,v1,v1,v1,v1,v2,v2,v2,v3,v3] //very easy to create based on base1 solution

randomCluster = random(clusterWeight) 

int atomicPointer = 0;

for each request:

  next = atomicPointer.getAndIncrease();

  application = randomCluster[atomicPointer];

and that's it. the router doesn't have to figure out where the next request goes. This is a simple, elegant and easy to understand solution.

Filip

On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 3:09 PM Shubha Anjur Tupil <sanjurtupil@...> wrote:

The CF Routing team has received feedback from many users that support for weighted routing would make it easier to accomplish their goals. We have a proposal on the preferred user experience for weighted routing and the considerations we have taken into account.

If you have thoughts on this or have experience working with traffic splitting on other platforms, please share your feedback with us. Feel free to comment on the doc or reply here.

Regards,

CF Routing Team

The CF Routing team has received feedback from many users that support for weighted routing would make it easier to accomplish their goals. We have a proposal on the preferred user experience for weighted routing and the considerations we have taken into account.

If you have thoughts on this or have experience working with traffic splitting on other platforms, please share your feedback with us. Feel free to comment on the doc or reply here.

Regards,

CF Routing Team