Skip to content

release-21.2: multitenant: only charge for pgwire egress and update cost model settings#71286

Merged
RaduBerinde merged 3 commits intocockroachdb:release-21.2from
RaduBerinde:backport21.2-71094
Oct 7, 2021
Merged

release-21.2: multitenant: only charge for pgwire egress and update cost model settings#71286
RaduBerinde merged 3 commits intocockroachdb:release-21.2from
RaduBerinde:backport21.2-71094

Conversation

@RaduBerinde
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@RaduBerinde RaduBerinde commented Oct 7, 2021

Backport 3/3 commits from #71094.

/cc @cockroachdb/release

tenantrate: revive KV Compute Units

Sharing the same cost model for tenant costing and for KV-side tenant
limiting was a mistake - the latter is meant to estimate CPU usage as
much as possible whereas we want to take arbitrary freedoms with
tenant costing.

This commit revives the kv.tenant_rate_limiter.* settings for the
cost model and reverts to using the concept of "KV Compute Units"
inside the rate limiter.

Release note: None

Release justification: Necessary fix for the distributed rate limiting
functionality, which is vital for the upcoming Serverless MVP release.
It allows CRDB to throttle clusters that have run out of free or paid
request units (which measure CPU and I/O usage). This functionality is
only enabled in multi-tenant scenarios and should have no impact on
our dedicated customers.

multitenant: only charge for pgwire egress

This commit changes the tenant cost accounting for pgwire bytes to
only take into account egress; cloud providers don't charge for
ingress. In the future, we can plumb the ingress bytes separately if
needed - as of now we don't plan to charge for ingress.

Release note: None

Release justification: Necessary fix for the distributed rate limiting
functionality, which is vital for the upcoming Serverless MVP release.
It allows CRDB to throttle clusters that have run out of free or paid
request units (which measure CPU and I/O usage). This functionality is
only enabled in multi-tenant scenarios and should have no impact on
our dedicated customers.

tenantcostmodel: update settings

This commit updates settings for the tenant cost model. These values
are derived from the Tenant Pricing Model spreadsheet.

Release note: None

Release justification: Necessary fix for the distributed rate limiting
functionality, which is vital for the upcoming Serverless MVP release.
It allows CRDB to throttle clusters that have run out of free or paid
request units (which measure CPU and I/O usage). This functionality is
only enabled in multi-tenant scenarios and should have no impact on
our dedicated customers.

@RaduBerinde
tenantrate: revive KV Compute Units
455746e 
Sharing the same cost model for tenant costing and for KV-side tenant
limiting was a mistake - the latter is meant to estimate CPU usage as
much as possible whereas we want to take arbitrary freedoms with
tenant costing.

This commit revives the `kv.tenant_rate_limiter.*` settings for the
cost model and reverts to using the concept of "KV Compute Units"
inside the rate limiter.

Release note: None

Release justification: Necessary fix for the distributed rate limiting
functionality, which is vital for the upcoming Serverless MVP release.
It allows CRDB to throttle clusters that have run out of free or paid
request units (which measure CPU and I/O usage). This functionality is
only enabled in multi-tenant scenarios and should have no impact on
our dedicated customers.
@RaduBerinde
multitenant: only charge for pgwire egress
147f851 
This commit changes the tenant cost accounting for pgwire bytes to
only take into account egress; cloud providers don't charge for
ingress. In the future, we can plumb the ingress bytes separately if
needed - as of now we don't plan to charge for ingress.

Release note: None

Release justification: Necessary fix for the distributed rate limiting
functionality, which is vital for the upcoming Serverless MVP release.
It allows CRDB to throttle clusters that have run out of free or paid
request units (which measure CPU and I/O usage). This functionality is
only enabled in multi-tenant scenarios and should have no impact on
our dedicated customers.
@RaduBerinde
tenantcostmodel: update settings
429e3c5 
This commit updates settings for the tenant cost model. These values
are derived from the Tenant Pricing Model spreadsheet.

Release note: None

Release justification: Necessary fix for the distributed rate limiting
functionality, which is vital for the upcoming Serverless MVP release.
It allows CRDB to throttle clusters that have run out of free or paid
request units (which measure CPU and I/O usage). This functionality is
only enabled in multi-tenant scenarios and should have no impact on
our dedicated customers.
@RaduBerinde RaduBerinde requested a review from a team as a code owner October 7, 2021 17:13
@blathers-crl
Copy link
Copy Markdown

blathers-crl bot commented Oct 7, 2021

Thanks for opening a backport.

Please check the backport criteria before merging:

  • Patches should only be created for serious issues.
  • Patches should not break backwards-compatibility.
  • Patches should change as little code as possible.
  • Patches should not change on-disk formats or node communication protocols.
  • Patches should not add new functionality.
  • Patches must not add, edit, or otherwise modify cluster versions; or add version gates.
If some of the basic criteria cannot be satisfied, ensure that the exceptional criteria are satisfied within.
  • There is a high priority need for the functionality that cannot wait until the next release and is difficult to address in another way.
  • The new functionality is additive-only and only runs for clusters which have specifically “opted in” to it (e.g. by a cluster setting).
  • New code is protected by a conditional check that is trivial to verify and ensures that it only runs for opt-in clusters.
  • The PM and TL on the team that owns the changed code have signed off that the change obeys the above rules.

Add a brief release justification to the body of your PR to justify this backport.

Some other things to consider:

  • What did we do to ensure that a user that doesn’t know & care about this backport, has no idea that it happened?
  • Will this work in a cluster of mixed patch versions? Did we test that?
  • If a user upgrades a patch version, uses this feature, and then downgrades, what happens?

@cockroach-teamcity
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

cockroach-teamcity commented Oct 7, 2021

This change is Reviewable

@RaduBerinde RaduBerinde mentioned this pull request Oct 7, 2021
Closed
15 tasks
andy-kimball
andy-kimball approved these changes Oct 7, 2021
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@andy-kimball andy-kimball left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

:lgtm:

Reviewable status: :shipit: complete! 1 of 0 LGTMs obtained

@RaduBerinde RaduBerinde merged commit 62693f1 into cockroachdb:release-21.2 Oct 7, 2021
@RaduBerinde RaduBerinde deleted the backport21.2-71094 branch October 7, 2021 21:55
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@andy-kimball andy-kimball andy-kimball approved these changes

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@RaduBerinde @cockroach-teamcity @andy-kimball