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

[Core feature] Allow to specify userdata bucket in the storage configuration in flyte-core charts #4291

Closed
2 tasks done
gdabisias opened this issue Oct 24, 2023 · 2 comments · Fixed by #5015
Closed
2 tasks done
Assignees
Labels
enhancement New feature or request helm

Comments

@gdabisias
Copy link
Contributor

Motivation: Why do you think this is important?

Currently it is only possible to specify the metadata container in the storage object in the flyte core chart, e.g.

storage: {
			type: "custom"
			custom: {
				type: "stow"
				stow: {
					kind: "s3"
					config: {
						auth_type:     "accesskey"
						region:        "xxx"
						access_key_id: string | *""
						secret_key:    string | *""
						endpoint:      xxx
						disable_ssl:   false
						v2_signing:    false
					}
				}
            container: helm.values.userSettings.metadataBucket

while in the single binary deployment it is possible to specify both user and metadata containers in the storage configuration, e.g.

 storage:
    # metadataContainer Bucket to store Flyte metadata
    metadataContainer: "my-organization-flyte-container"
    # userDataContainer Bucket to store Flyte user data
    userDataContainer: "my-organization-flyte-container"

from here

The current fix for this lack of specification is to define the following field in the propeller configuration

core: propeller: {
				"rawoutput-prefix":     "s3://" + helm.values.userSettings.userdataBucket + "/"
...

Goal: What should the final outcome look like, ideally?

We should use the same storage configuration for the flyte deployment charts.

I think it would be good for 2 reasons:

  • it unifies configuration across deployments
  • it allows the users to specify all storage configurations just in one place

Describe alternatives you've considered

None

Propose: Link/Inline OR Additional context

No response

Are you sure this issue hasn't been raised already?

  • Yes

Have you read the Code of Conduct?

  • Yes
@gdabisias gdabisias added enhancement New feature or request untriaged This issues has not yet been looked at by the Maintainers labels Oct 24, 2023
@eapolinario eapolinario removed the untriaged This issues has not yet been looked at by the Maintainers label Oct 26, 2023
@eapolinario
Copy link
Contributor

@gdabisias , would you be willing to contribute with this change?

@gdabisias
Copy link
Contributor Author

hi @eapolinario, possibly in the future, but not right now:)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request helm
Projects
None yet
3 participants