oxidecomputer / oxidecomputer/omicron
Instances could do a better job of identifying if they're satisfying affinity requests or not
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Rust
- Stars
- 572
- Forks
- 97
- Avg merge
- 2d 12h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 96
Description
See: https://github.com/oxidecomputer/omicron/pull/7447#issuecomment-2679118234
Currently affinity/anti-affinity rules are used during the "sled reservation" component of VMM starting, but are not subsequently checked.
However, with permissive rules, it's possible that these affinity/anti-affinity requests are violated, and later could be re-inspected.
This issue tracks exposing an API to identify: "Is this instance satisfying affinity rules?"
Related, we could expose an API to identify: "Are there any instances violating affinity rules?"
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start with the discussion in pull request 7447 and trace where affinity and anti-affinity rules are used during VMM startup and sled reservation. Define the API surface for checking an instance and for listing violations, with completion shown by coverage of the requested status checks.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- rust
- Domain
- api, backend
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100