CORS-4212: AWS: Add the ability to configure throughput on GP3 volumes #9945

jhixson74 · 2025-09-17T05:07:26Z

GP3 volumes have the ability to configure throughput from 125 MiB/s to 1000 MiB/s. This allows the ability to set this at install time in the install-config.

https://issues.redhat.com/browse/CORS-4212
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/CORS-4213
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/CORS-4214

This depends on openshift/api#2480

GP3 volumes have the ability to configure throughput from 125 MiB/s to 1000 MiB/s. This allows the ability to set this at install time in the install-config. https://issues.redhat.com/browse/CORS-4212

openshift-ci-robot · 2025-09-17T05:07:30Z

@jhixson74: This pull request references CORS-4212 which is a valid jira issue.

Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the epic to target the "4.21.0" version, but no target version was set.

In response to this:

GP3 volumes have the ability to configure throughput from 125 MiB/s to 1000 MiB/s. This allows the ability to set this at install time in the install-config.

https://issues.redhat.com/browse/CORS-4212
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/CORS-4213
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/CORS-4214

This depends on openshift/api#2480

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

openshift-ci · 2025-09-17T05:55:54Z

@jhixson74: The following tests failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name	Commit	Details	Required	Rerun command
ci/prow/images	`6409103`	link	true	`/test images`
ci/prow/e2e-aws-ovn-fips	`6409103`	link	false	`/test e2e-aws-ovn-fips`
ci/prow/e2e-vsphere-externallb-ovn	`6409103`	link	false	`/test e2e-vsphere-externallb-ovn`
ci/prow/e2e-aws-default-config	`6409103`	link	false	`/test e2e-aws-default-config`
ci/prow/e2e-azure-ovn-resourcegroup	`6409103`	link	false	`/test e2e-azure-ovn-resourcegroup`
ci/prow/e2e-aws-byo-subnet-role-security-groups	`6409103`	link	false	`/test e2e-aws-byo-subnet-role-security-groups`
ci/prow/aws-private	`6409103`	link	false	`/test aws-private`
ci/prow/okd-scos-e2e-aws-ovn	`6409103`	link	false	`/test okd-scos-e2e-aws-ovn`
ci/prow/golint	`6409103`	link	true	`/test golint`
ci/prow/artifacts-images	`6409103`	link	true	`/test artifacts-images`
ci/prow/unit	`6409103`	link	true	`/test unit`
ci/prow/e2e-aws-custom-dns-techpreview	`6409103`	link	false	`/test e2e-aws-custom-dns-techpreview`
ci/prow/e2e-aws-ovn-heterogeneous	`6409103`	link	false	`/test e2e-aws-ovn-heterogeneous`
ci/prow/e2e-aws-ovn-shared-vpc-custom-security-groups	`6409103`	link	false	`/test e2e-aws-ovn-shared-vpc-custom-security-groups`
ci/prow/e2e-vsphere-ovn-multi-network	`6409103`	link	false	`/test e2e-vsphere-ovn-multi-network`
ci/prow/e2e-aws-ovn-shared-vpc-edge-zones	`6409103`	link	false	`/test e2e-aws-ovn-shared-vpc-edge-zones`
ci/prow/e2e-vsphere-static-ovn	`6409103`	link	false	`/test e2e-vsphere-static-ovn`
ci/prow/e2e-aws-ovn	`6409103`	link	true	`/test e2e-aws-ovn`
ci/prow/e2e-aws-ovn-single-node	`6409103`	link	false	`/test e2e-aws-ovn-single-node`
ci/prow/e2e-aws-ovn-imdsv2	`6409103`	link	false	`/test e2e-aws-ovn-imdsv2`
ci/prow/e2e-aws-ovn-edge-zones	`6409103`	link	false	`/test e2e-aws-ovn-edge-zones`
ci/prow/e2e-aws-ovn-edge-zones-manifest-validation	`6409103`	link	true	`/test e2e-aws-ovn-edge-zones-manifest-validation`
ci/prow/govet	`6409103`	link	true	`/test govet`
ci/prow/okd-scos-images	`6409103`	link	true	`/test okd-scos-images`

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

jhixson74 · 2025-09-17T06:24:41Z

/label do-not-merge

openshift-ci · 2025-09-17T06:24:45Z

@jhixson74: The label(s) /label do-not-merge cannot be applied. These labels are supported: acknowledge-critical-fixes-only, platform/aws, platform/azure, platform/baremetal, platform/google, platform/libvirt, platform/openstack, ga, tide/merge-method-merge, tide/merge-method-rebase, tide/merge-method-squash, px-approved, docs-approved, qe-approved, ux-approved, no-qe, downstream-change-needed, rebase/manual, cluster-config-api-changed, run-integration-tests, approved, backport-risk-assessed, bugzilla/valid-bug, cherry-pick-approved, jira/valid-bug, ok-to-test, stability-fix-approved, staff-eng-approved. Is this label configured under labels -> additional_labels or labels -> restricted_labels in plugin.yaml?

In response to this:

/label do-not-merge

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

jhixson74 · 2025-09-17T06:25:40Z

/label do-not-merge/hold

openshift-ci · 2025-09-17T06:25:56Z

@jhixson74: The label(s) /label do-not-merge/hold cannot be applied. These labels are supported: acknowledge-critical-fixes-only, platform/aws, platform/azure, platform/baremetal, platform/google, platform/libvirt, platform/openstack, ga, tide/merge-method-merge, tide/merge-method-rebase, tide/merge-method-squash, px-approved, docs-approved, qe-approved, ux-approved, no-qe, downstream-change-needed, rebase/manual, cluster-config-api-changed, run-integration-tests, approved, backport-risk-assessed, bugzilla/valid-bug, cherry-pick-approved, jira/valid-bug, ok-to-test, stability-fix-approved, staff-eng-approved. Is this label configured under labels -> additional_labels or labels -> restricted_labels in plugin.yaml?

In response to this:

/label do-not-merge/hold

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

jhixson74 · 2025-09-17T06:27:48Z

/hold

tthvo · 2025-09-17T17:06:58Z

/cc

patrickdillon

Overall this looks good to me

/approve

There are a few small things that should be cleaned up, commented below. And there is no rush because this depends on openshift/api#4212

patrickdillon · 2025-09-24T15:43:44Z

pkg/types/aws/machinepool.go


+	// Throughput to provision in MiB/s supported for the volume type. Not applicable to all types.
+	//
+	// +kubebuilder:validation:Minimum=0


nit: the minimum is listing as 0, but we validate the minimum as 125, so it seems like the minimum here should be set to 125 and also the maximum should be set as well

A non-zero value will break things. This setting is only valid for gp3 volumes. While I don't know the behavior from Amazon that this would cause, I do know that cluter-api-provider-aws will blow up:

https://github.com/openshift/cluster-api-provider-aws/blob/043b4e8048915656d91428c01497fb109e534b09/api/v1beta2/awsmachine_webhook.go#L343

We handle IOPS in a similar fashion.

https://github.com/openshift/machine-api-provider-aws/blob/d1cc300e80d2c02c234a04b8c72b71e720bc311f/pkg/actuators/machine/instances.go#L321

patrickdillon · 2025-09-24T15:44:55Z

pkg/types/aws/machinepool.go

 	// +optional
 	IOPS int `json:"iops"`

+	// Throughput to provision in MiB/s supported for the volume type. Not applicable to all types.


Suggested change

// Throughput to provision in MiB/s supported for the volume type. Not applicable to all types.

// Throughput to provision in MiB/s supported for the volume type. Only supported for gp3.

patrickdillon · 2025-09-24T15:49:35Z

pkg/tfvars/aws/aws.go

 	EdgeZonesGatewayIndex           map[string]int    `json:"aws_edge_parent_zones_index,omitempty"`
 	EdgeZonesType                   map[string]string `json:"aws_edge_zones_type,omitempty"`
 	IOPS                            int64             `json:"aws_master_root_volume_iops"`
+	Throughput                      int64             `json:"aws_master_root_volume_throughput"`


I don't think we need this change. AFAIK AWS is not using the Terraform configs (a few providers get information from the terraform configs in the capi workflows, but I don't think AWS is one of those. correct me if I'm wrong). We will delete them to avoid future confusion.

Will remove. Why does this code still exist if we aren't using it?

patrickdillon · 2025-09-24T15:49:56Z

pkg/tfvars/aws/aws.go

+	if rootVolume.EBS.Throughput != nil {
+		cfg.Throughput = *rootVolume.EBS.Throughput
+	}


Ditto, I don't think we need this terraform update.

openshift-ci · 2025-09-24T15:56:49Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: patrickdillon

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

~~OWNERS~~ [patrickdillon]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

mtulio · 2025-09-24T17:15:00Z

pkg/types/aws/validation/machinepool.go

+	throughput := p.EC2RootVolume.Throughput
+
+	switch volumeType {
+	case "gp3":


@patrickdillon @jhixson74 should we allow io2 too as it is commonly used to environments which requires highly throughput/performance on disks?

@mtulio according to documentation in the code, this is only supported by gp3. If you can show otherwise, I'm happy to update.

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/cli/latest/reference/ec2/create-volume.html

Scroll down to --throughput

Only gp3 is supported.

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/APIReference/API_CreateVolume.html

yep, I messed up with iops

AWS: Add the ability to configure throughput on GP3 volumes

6409103

GP3 volumes have the ability to configure throughput from 125 MiB/s to 1000 MiB/s. This allows the ability to set this at install time in the install-config. https://issues.redhat.com/browse/CORS-4212

openshift-ci-robot added the jira/valid-reference Indicates that this PR references a valid Jira ticket of any type. label Sep 17, 2025

openshift-ci bot requested review from mtulio and patrickdillon September 17, 2025 05:08

openshift-ci bot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Sep 17, 2025

openshift-ci bot requested a review from tthvo September 17, 2025 17:07

patrickdillon approved these changes Sep 24, 2025

View reviewed changes

openshift-ci bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Sep 24, 2025

mtulio reviewed Sep 24, 2025

View reviewed changes

	// Throughput to provision in MiB/s supported for the volume type. Not applicable to all types.
	// Throughput to provision in MiB/s supported for the volume type. Only supported for gp3.

CORS-4212: AWS: Add the ability to configure throughput on GP3 volumes #9945

Are you sure you want to change the base?

CORS-4212: AWS: Add the ability to configure throughput on GP3 volumes #9945

Uh oh!

Conversation

jhixson74 commented Sep 17, 2025

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented Sep 17, 2025 • edited by openshift-ci bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

openshift-ci bot commented Sep 17, 2025

Uh oh!

jhixson74 commented Sep 17, 2025

Uh oh!

openshift-ci bot commented Sep 17, 2025

Uh oh!

jhixson74 commented Sep 17, 2025

Uh oh!

openshift-ci bot commented Sep 17, 2025

Uh oh!

jhixson74 commented Sep 17, 2025

Uh oh!

tthvo commented Sep 17, 2025

Uh oh!

patrickdillon left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jhixson74 Sep 25, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

openshift-ci bot commented Sep 24, 2025

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented Sep 17, 2025 •

edited by openshift-ci bot

Loading

jhixson74 Sep 25, 2025 •

edited

Loading