Add stateful application tutorial. #1599
Conversation
|
Preview looks good. |
|
@askcarter @waprin PTAL |
|
How do we stage it again? |
|
@waprin you can check out this pr, under the "All checks", then click Details next to deploy/netlify To stage your stuff before opening a PR, check out https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes.github.io#staging-the-site-locally-using-docker |
|
I'll take a look at this and provide feedback by EOD Friday 11/4. |
|
We found a Contributor License Agreement for you (the sender of this pull request) and all commit authors, but as best as we can tell these commits were authored by someone else. If that's the case, please add them to this pull request and have them confirm that they're okay with these commits being contributed to Google. If we're mistaken and you did author these commits, just reply here to confirm. |
|
I really like the overall tutorial and its flow. I learned new things easily by going through this tutorial. I added a commit that has some suggested changes and also brings the document into alignment with our style guide. |
|
Investigating why the deploy/netlify check failed. |
| the types of environments supported. This Tutorial will demonstrate | ||
| `GCEPersistentDisk` but any type will work. `GCEPersistentDisk` | ||
| volumes only work on Google Compute Engine. | ||
| * {% include task-tutorial-prereqs.md %} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Steve, The last bullet is important for this sample, I know it is covered in the first step of the tutorial, but I think it is important to call out in the prereqs.
jeffmendoza
force-pushed
the
stateful-app
branch
from
ed008a3 to
56c8d79
Compare
|
@steveperry-53 Rebased and updated prereqs. Screenshot below |
|
@steveperry-53 Any other changes needed? @jeffmendoza I think we should remove the second bullet under Before You Begin. I see creating the persistent disk as a step, rather than a prerequisite. And I think it is covered as a step under "Setup a disk in your environment." Other than that, LGTM. |
|
For 1.5, I would recommend that users use a StatefulSet for this use case. StatefulSet will be beta in 1.5. Was your plan to have this as an option in addition to StatefulSet, and if so how should users pick? Or would this one, with the Deployment, go into the 1.4 docs, and replace it with an SS-based example for 1.5? Or are there still users who don't want to use a beta resource? |
|
The title of this one is "Running a Single-Instance Stateful Application". I was thinking we would have a complementary article "Running a Clustered Stateful Application" that covers StatefulSet. Is this correct? |
|
I like the idea of having this tutorial be for single instance and having another tutorial for StatefulSet. |
jeffmendoza
force-pushed
the
stateful-app
branch
from
56c8d79 to
6141ab0
Compare
|
Rebased |
jeffmendoza
force-pushed
the
stateful-app
branch
from
6141ab0 to
053cdb3
Compare
|
CLAs look good, thanks! |
|
@jeffmendoza @jaredbhatti Should we cherrypick this into release-1.5 since I'm adding StatefulSets tutorial #1707 and need the navigation change added here |
|
I'll leave it up to Jared. Is there a plan for a regular merge (and conflict resolution) from master into release-1.5 to avoid a big merge at the end? |
This change is