On 10/18/19 2:19 PM, Arturo Borrero Gonzalez wrote:
On 10/18/19 12:53 AM, Brooke Storm wrote:
The only thing I might caution is that using a
floating IP might be ideal for
being able to quickly fail over to a new load balancer, if needed (and a bit
nicer than DNS in general). I believe that is the whole rationale behind the
current name. It’s a standard name added in OpenStack with a floating IP, which
makes it fairly easy to work with and reason about for any Toolforge admin (when
it’s documented…obviously when we didn’t know about it, we had a lovely outage
on trying to move to the new region).
I don’t care too much about the name per se. I do care about whether it is
straightforward. That’s the only reason I was thinking of the
wmcloud.org
<http://wmcloud.org> domain. I don’t know if that’s doable with the other one
or not.
Ok for the floating IP!
The domain name, I would use what Bryan suggests:
* k8s.tools.eqiad1.wikimedia.cloud
* k8s.tools.eqiad.wmflabs
And the counterparts:
* k8s.toolsbeta.eqiad1.wikimedia.cloud
* k8s.toolsbeta.eqiad.wmflabs
regards.
The final question. I may have found a contradiction.
If we are going to use a floating IP for this (we just agreed on that), then
using 'tools.eqiad1.wikimedia.cloud' may be wrong, since that's meant to hold
private IP addresses.
Shall we step back and consider the 'wmcloud.org' domain?
I miss information on how to handle floating IPs wrt. the new domains. Just
asking for the additional clarification.
I think is important we are having this debate (and clarifying the examples in
the wiki), this will make things easier in the future.
regards.
--
Arturo Borrero Gonzalez
SRE / Wikimedia Cloud Services
Wikimedia Foundation