Add separate dynamic config knobs for internal-frontend rate limiting #3800
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What changed?
Add
internal-frontend.globalNamespaceRPSandinternal-frontend.globalNamespaceRPS.visibilityto match thefrontendversions of those configs, which divide their value among internal-frontend nodes.Why?
"Global" namespace rps was divided among the number of "frontend" nodes, but for users using internal-frontend, that didn't make much sense, since the number of internal-frontend will likely be different from frontend, and the load will be different too.
Only the "global" versions were added, not "per-instance". If they are not set, internal-frontend will use the same per-instance configs as frontend (it will not fall back to the global frontend configs). To use a separate limit for internal-frontend, use the global versions.
How did you test it?
CI
Potential risks
This only applies to configurations using internal-frontend and shouldn't affect anyone else.
Is hotfix candidate?