You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The current update.sh-based approach, even if improved with things like #32 and #123 (and maybe #124 and #125) or replaced as suggested in #109, ultimately still leaves the "control" of which version to run at the leaf nodes of the network.
Perhaps a more radical future direction you may want to eventually consider to really scale this up more massively could be to let (something like, or a part of) the Orchestrator decide which Node should run what version?
That would allow it to decide where to attempt "canarying" the next great versions, and gradually roll it out - and centrally roll-back.
How exactly this could be concretely best implemented would require further thoughts.
This may only become more relevant with hundreds or thousands of Nodes than the current tens.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The current
update.sh
-based approach, even if improved with things like #32 and #123 (and maybe #124 and #125) or replaced as suggested in #109, ultimately still leaves the "control" of which version to run at the leaf nodes of the network.Perhaps a more radical future direction you may want to eventually consider to really scale this up more massively could be to let (something like, or a part of) the Orchestrator decide which Node should run what version?
That would allow it to decide where to attempt "canarying" the next great versions, and gradually roll it out - and centrally roll-back.
How exactly this could be concretely best implemented would require further thoughts.
This may only become more relevant with hundreds or thousands of Nodes than the current tens.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: