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

Should the idle culler also cull named servers? #547

Closed
jtpio opened this issue Apr 8, 2020 · 6 comments
Closed

Should the idle culler also cull named servers? #547

jtpio opened this issue Apr 8, 2020 · 6 comments

Comments

@jtpio
Copy link
Contributor

jtpio commented Apr 8, 2020

Testing a TLJH deployment with:

  • named servers enabled (2 allowed per user)
  • the idle culler service enabled

It looks like the default server is correctly culled after it has been idle for more than the number specified in timeout,

However the named servers are still shown as running in the list of servers and can be accessed normally, and they don't appear to be culled.

Should the idle culler script also take into account the named servers?

@jtpio
Copy link
Contributor Author

jtpio commented Apr 8, 2020

Although it looks like they should be taken into account by the idle culler:

# named servers contain the 'servers' dict

@betatim
Copy link
Member

betatim commented Apr 9, 2020

Maybe this change to the cull idle script used by Z2JH is helpful jupyterhub/zero-to-jupyterhub-k8s#1558

@jtpio
Copy link
Contributor Author

jtpio commented Apr 9, 2020

Thanks @betatim for the pointer!

@jtpio
Copy link
Contributor Author

jtpio commented Apr 9, 2020

It looks like the cull_idle.py file could be copied over to TLJH.

Then adding a new remove_named_server option set to False by default that can be enabled with tljh-config.

@jtpio
Copy link
Contributor Author

jtpio commented Apr 23, 2020

Looking into jupyterhub/zero-to-jupyterhub-k8s#1558, it seems like this change is about deleting the named server rather than stopping?

@jtpio
Copy link
Contributor Author

jtpio commented May 5, 2020

Fixed by #559.

@jtpio jtpio closed this as completed May 5, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants