juju specifies obsolete, more expensive, and worse performing instance types on aws

Bug #1280852 reported by Kapil Thangavelu
6
This bug affects 1 person
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
juju-core
High
John A Meinel

Bug Description

m3 instance types should be preferred over m1, as they have better performance at a cheaper cost. the only m1 instance that juju should have definition for is m1.small. Its been several months where these types have been extant at a better price/perf.

Related branches

Revision history for this message
John A Meinel (jameinel) wrote :

The fix is in the 1.16 branch, we just need to merge that branch into trunk.

Changed in juju-core:
importance: Undecided → High
milestone: none → 1.17.3
status: New → Triaged
Revision history for this message
John A Meinel (jameinel) wrote :

Looks like the fix landed a couple days after 1.16.6 was cut, so targetting it to 1.16.7

Changed in juju-core:
assignee: nobody → John A Meinel (jameinel)
John A Meinel (jameinel)
Changed in juju-core:
status: Triaged → In Progress
Revision history for this message
Kapil Thangavelu (hazmat) wrote : Re: [Bug 1280852] Re: juju specifies obsolete, more expensive, and worse performing instance types on aws

The fix should also be on trunk.. not just the stable branch.

On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 2:51 AM, John A Meinel <email address hidden>wrote:

> ** Changed in: juju-core
> Status: Triaged => In Progress
>
> --
> You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to the bug
> report.
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1280852
>
> Title:
> juju specifies obsolete, more expensive, and worse performing instance
> types on aws
>
> To manage notifications about this bug go to:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1280852/+subscriptions
>

Curtis Hovey (sinzui)
Changed in juju-core:
milestone: 1.17.3 → 1.18.0
Revision history for this message
John A Meinel (jameinel) wrote :

I think this is 1.17.4 if we merged the 1.16 branch in time. We should
audit for that.

John
=:->
On Feb 20, 2014 3:11 PM, "Curtis Hovey" <email address hidden> wrote:

> ** Changed in: juju-core
> Milestone: 1.17.3 => 1.18.0
>
> --
> You received this bug notification because you are a bug assignee.
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1280852
>
> Title:
> juju specifies obsolete, more expensive, and worse performing instance
> types on aws
>
> To manage notifications about this bug go to:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1280852/+subscriptions
>

Revision history for this message
Kapil Thangavelu (hazmat) wrote :

This bug isn't resolved imo till we remove m1.medium, m1.large, etc.. everything but m1.small should not be present.

Right now we have both, with no cost differential, and no way for a user to specify an instance-type.. IOTW there still getting the worst of both worlds. There is zero reason to continue to carry those instance types. We should not have a user have to specify cpu-power which is arbitrary idiosyncratic metric which means nothing to people aren't going to source dive into juju-core.

Curtis Hovey (sinzui)
no longer affects: juju-core/1.16
Revision history for this message
Kapil Thangavelu (hazmat) wrote :

It still affects 1.16 and trunk/dev. The merge ended up just adding the
additional m3 instance types, without the removal of the m1 there's no
clear way for a user to specify.

On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Curtis Hovey <email address hidden> wrote:

> ** No longer affects: juju-core/1.16
>
> --
> You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to the bug
> report.
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1280852
>
> Title:
> juju specifies obsolete, more expensive, and worse performing instance
> types on aws
>
> To manage notifications about this bug go to:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1280852/+subscriptions
>

Curtis Hovey (sinzui)
Changed in juju-core:
status: In Progress → Triaged
assignee: John A Meinel (jameinel) → nobody
Revision history for this message
William Reade (fwereade) wrote :

--constraints mem=3840 correctly selects an m3.medium -- when multiple instance types match constraints, the cheapest is chosen. I'm not aware of anything relevant changing between #6 and my check just now -- kapil, what exactly are you seeing?

Revision history for this message
Kapil Thangavelu (hazmat) wrote :

I agree this issue is resolved on trunk and stable series.

On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 6:01 AM, William Reade
<email address hidden>wrote:

> --constraints mem=3840 correctly selects an m3.medium -- when multiple
> instance types match constraints, the cheapest is chosen. I'm not aware
> of anything relevant changing between #6 and my check just now -- kapil,
> what exactly are you seeing?
>
> --
> You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to the bug
> report.
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1280852
>
> Title:
> juju specifies obsolete, more expensive, and worse performing instance
> types on aws
>
> To manage notifications about this bug go to:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1280852/+subscriptions
>

John A Meinel (jameinel)
Changed in juju-core:
milestone: 1.20.0 → 1.18.2
status: Triaged → Fix Released
assignee: nobody → John A Meinel (jameinel)
Curtis Hovey (sinzui)
Changed in juju-core:
milestone: 1.18.2 → 1.18.1
To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  Edit
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers