[azure provider] Availability Sets are not set for multi-unit VMs
Bug #1892854 reported by
Peter Jose De Sousa
This bug affects 1 person
Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Canonical Juju |
Triaged
|
Wishlist
|
Unassigned |
Bug Description
Hi,
[Problem]
When deploying a hyper-converged architecture on Azure, juju will not configure Availability Sets.
[Detail]
When deploying applications on Azure if applications are deployed on a machine with a 1:1 relation i.e. 1 application to 1 machine, Juju will configure Availability Sets, but if there are multiple units on a VM then this will not happen.
This causes issues when deploying hyper-converged architectures which require load balancing, e.g. Kubernetes Masters in Charmed Kubernetes.
[Resolution]
Potentially providing a configuration option to put certain machines into Availability Sets, e.g. contraints=
Cheers,
Peter
Changed in juju: | |
milestone: | 2.9-beta1 → 2.9-rc1 |
Changed in juju: | |
milestone: | 2.9-rc1 → 2.9.1 |
Changed in juju: | |
milestone: | 2.9.1 → 2.9.2 |
Changed in juju: | |
milestone: | 2.9.2 → 2.9.3 |
Changed in juju: | |
milestone: | 2.9.3 → 2.9.4 |
Changed in juju: | |
milestone: | 2.9.4 → 2.9.5 |
Changed in juju: | |
milestone: | 2.9.5 → 2.9.6 |
Changed in juju: | |
milestone: | 2.9.6 → 2.9.7 |
Changed in juju: | |
milestone: | 2.9.7 → 2.9.8 |
Changed in juju: | |
milestone: | 2.9.8 → 2.9.9 |
Changed in juju: | |
milestone: | 2.9.9 → 2.9.10 |
Changed in juju: | |
milestone: | 2.9.10 → 2.9.11 |
Changed in juju: | |
milestone: | 2.9.11 → 2.9.12 |
Changed in juju: | |
milestone: | 2.9.12 → 2.9.13 |
Changed in juju: | |
milestone: | 2.9.13 → 2.9.14 |
Changed in juju: | |
milestone: | 2.9.14 → 2.9.15 |
Changed in juju: | |
milestone: | 2.9.15 → 2.9.16 |
Changed in juju: | |
milestone: | 2.9.16 → 2.9.17 |
Changed in juju: | |
milestone: | 2.9.17 → 2.9.18 |
Changed in juju: | |
milestone: | 2.9.18 → 2.9.19 |
Changed in juju: | |
milestone: | 2.9.19 → 2.9.20 |
Changed in juju: | |
milestone: | 2.9.20 → 2.9.21 |
Changed in juju: | |
milestone: | 2.9.21 → 2.9.22 |
Changed in juju: | |
milestone: | 2.9.22 → 2.9.23 |
Changed in juju: | |
milestone: | 2.9.23 → 2.9.24 |
Changed in juju: | |
milestone: | 2.9.24 → 2.9.25 |
Changed in juju: | |
milestone: | 2.9.25 → 2.9.26 |
Changed in juju: | |
milestone: | 2.9.26 → 2.9.27 |
Changed in juju: | |
milestone: | 2.9.27 → 2.9.28 |
Changed in juju: | |
milestone: | 2.9.28 → 2.9.29 |
Changed in juju: | |
milestone: | 2.9.29 → none |
To post a comment you must log in.
I propose we add this as a new machine-constraint, where the user can add one (or several?) availability-set entries.
Should we create those sets, if they don't exist?
Created a PR with this idea: https:/ /github. com/juju/ juju/pull/ 11938