Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

GSA selector for active/inactive gsSet #3087

Closed
foriequal0 opened this issue Apr 12, 2023 · 6 comments
Closed

GSA selector for active/inactive gsSet #3087

foriequal0 opened this issue Apr 12, 2023 · 6 comments
Labels
kind/feature New features for Agones obsolete stale Pending closure unless there is a strong objection.

Comments

@foriequal0
Copy link

foriequal0 commented Apr 12, 2023

We use Agones for short multiplay sessions (~10m per sessions)
Naturally, we wanted to a rolling update plan like this:

  1. Keep scaling down old non-Allocated gs (buffers), while scaling up new gsSet when the Fleet is updated.
  2. Incoming users are allocated to new active gameservers.
  3. Sessions are short, so old gsSet is fully drained soon.

But we found that we can't do 2. using current selectors of GSA.
We might be able to do that by manually labeling gsSet and GSA, but it is cumbersome and prone to error.

@foriequal0 foriequal0 added the kind/feature New features for Agones label Apr 12, 2023
@markmandel
Copy link
Member

I think this is duplicate of:

Which is currently underway. (I have the code, I need to finish submitting it all -- sorry, GDC got in the way).

Please let me know if I'm wrong in this though, and you want something different.

@gongmax
Copy link
Collaborator

gongmax commented Apr 13, 2023

#2682 provides an opt-in solution, which is good. But should we make it a default behavior that the allocated GS from an old gameserverset has lower priority when performing an allocation? I assume customer would want to allocate new incoming users to new gameservers after Fleet update, but I could be totally wrong.

@markmandel
Copy link
Member

🤔 interesting question. It probably depends what the end user wants to optimise on: Infrastructure packing or speed of moving to a new version - and that might go either way I feel.

@gongmax
Copy link
Collaborator

gongmax commented Apr 13, 2023

Interesting, we might be able try the best to learn end user's preference, i.e. if the scheduling is Packed, then they may prefer infrastructure packing. If it's Distributed, then infrastructure packing might not be a major concern.

Copy link

github-actions bot commented May 1, 2024

'This issue is marked as Stale due to inactivity for more than 30 days. To avoid being marked as 'stale' please add 'awaiting-maintainer' label or add a comment. Thank you for your contributions '

@github-actions github-actions bot added the stale Pending closure unless there is a strong objection. label May 1, 2024
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Jun 1, 2024

This issue is marked as obsolete due to inactivity for last 60 days. To avoid issue getting closed in next 30 days, please add a comment or add 'awaiting-maintainer' label. Thank you for your contributions

@github-actions github-actions bot closed this as not planned Won't fix, can't repro, duplicate, stale Jun 15, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
kind/feature New features for Agones obsolete stale Pending closure unless there is a strong objection.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants