Repository navigation
Upgrade Keycloak's sizing guide for KC26 - #32344
Conversation
Closes keycloak#32343 Signed-off-by: Alexander Schwartz <aschwart@redhat.com>
22f2b96 to
6298ad4
Compare
|
@kami619 - please review when you have the time. Thanks! |
| To calculate the requested memory, use the calculation above. As memory limit, subtract the non-heap memory from the value above and divide the result by 0.7. | ||
|
|
||
| * For each 45 password-based user logins per second, 1 vCPU per Pod in a three-node cluster (tested with up to 300 per second). | ||
| * For each 15 password-based user logins per second, allocate 1 vCPU to the cluster (tested with up to 300 per second). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would this then compute to, 135 user logins per second, if only the user login scenario is load tested against the 3 pod cluster in an Active/Active setup ? @ahus1
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In a 2x3 Pods A/A setup and 135 logins per seconds, you would see 1.5 vCPUs used on each pod when both clusters are active. If then one site goes down, you would then see the usage of 3.0 vCPUs on each of the three remaining active Pods.
I'd think you have a choice here then either request 1.5 vCPUs per Pod and rely on the cluster to have enough bandwidth when one site goes down, or request 3.0 vCPUs per Pod to be on the safe side. Maybe request 1.5 vCPUs and then have an auto-scaler scale up 6 Pod in the remaining DC if you can afford the delay of an autoscaler on the pod level and the cluster level. IMHO there is no simple answer to that. I'll see if I can provide an answer on this, still.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you Alex, this helps!
Co-authored-by: Kamesh Akella <kakella@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Alexander Schwartz <alexander.schwartz@gmx.net>
Closes keycloak#32343 Signed-off-by: Alexander Schwartz <aschwart@redhat.com>
|
@kami619 - I've pushed a change. The part that talks about specific DB instances is now moved to the example section, while the performance recommendations are then more general. I also described three alternatives on how to do a sizing of a multi-site setup with regards to the CPUs. I'm looking forward to your review. |
|
@ahus1 Thanks for the changes. It looks good to me now. |
Closes #32343