Zach Bjornson

My feedback

  1. 2 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Cloud Storage  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Zach Bjornson shared this idea  · 
  2. 34 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Cloud Storage  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Zach Bjornson supported this idea  · 
  3. 31 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    3 comments  ·  Cloud Pub/Sub » Feature Request  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Zach Bjornson supported this idea  · 
    Zach Bjornson commented  · 

    This is sort of available now (https://cloudplatform.googleblog.com/2018/03/queue-based-scaling-made-easy-with-new-stackdriver-per-group-metrics.html), but seems to have the fatal flaw that instances can be terminated before they are done processing a message:

    > Note that [num_undelivered_messages] exports the total number of messages in the queue, including messages that are currently being processed but that are not yet acknowledged. Using a metric that does not include the messages being processed is not recommended because such a metric can drop down to 0 when there is still work being done, which prompts autoscaling to scale down and possibly interrupt the actual work.

    (https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/autoscaler/scaling-stackdriver-monitoring-metrics#example_using_instance_assignment_to_scale_based_on_a_pubsub_queue)

  4. 12 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    3 comments  ·  Compute Engine  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Zach Bjornson supported this idea  · 
  5. 75 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    3 comments  ·  Compute Engine  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Zach Bjornson supported this idea  · 
  6. 118 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    14 comments  ·  Compute Engine  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Zach Bjornson supported this idea  · 
    Zach Bjornson commented  · 

    A similar case of handling mutability in GCP is how you can change the template for an instance group. If you change the template, then any newly created machines will be updated, but existing machines will be unchanged. It seems like that same type of thing could be applied to instance templates.

    Note that because instance templates can refer to an image family, you can essentially mutate an instance template by publishing a newer image to the family. Thus there is currently no guarantee that template instances are identical.

  7. 27 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    3 comments  ·  Google Cloud Platform » Feature Request  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Zach Bjornson shared this idea  · 
  8. 396 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    under review  ·  6 comments  ·  Compute Engine  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Zach Bjornson supported this idea  · 

Feedback and Knowledge Base