Skip to content

Conversation

ChrisJBurns
Copy link
Collaborator

Wanted to get some early thoughts on this.

@ChrisJBurns to refine technical details if needed

Signed-off-by: ChrisJBurns <29541485+ChrisJBurns@users.noreply.github.com>
@ChrisJBurns ChrisJBurns marked this pull request as draft August 19, 2025 19:09
Signed-off-by: ChrisJBurns <29541485+ChrisJBurns@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: ChrisJBurns <29541485+ChrisJBurns@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: ChrisJBurns <29541485+ChrisJBurns@users.noreply.github.com>
@RoddieKieley
Copy link
Collaborator

Initial thoughts. This makes a lot of sense to me @ChrisJBurns. The operator should indeed be taking responsibility for both the deployment and statefulset creation, and then also their association with various kubernetes services and other resources such that their reconciliation and reclamation can happen cleanly.

I also like the idea of having the proxy still being able to request an mcp server replica + or - depending on the load it is experiencing, and while the operator has the big picture the proxy will have the data to determine the need most directly.

@dmartinol
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks for updating the architecture and making it more coherent with standard k8s deployments @ChrisJBurns.
IMO, it could help to highlight the role of the auxiliary services (I mean k8s Service) and how the network topologies work from a consumer perspective, and whether it changes depending on the container transport and the exposed service transport.

@jhrozek
Copy link
Contributor

jhrozek commented Aug 28, 2025

great work thanks @ChrisJBurns

Signed-off-by: ChrisJBurns <29541485+ChrisJBurns@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: ChrisJBurns <29541485+ChrisJBurns@users.noreply.github.com>
@ChrisJBurns ChrisJBurns marked this pull request as ready for review September 9, 2025 19:05
@coveralls
Copy link
Collaborator

coveralls commented Sep 9, 2025

Coverage Status

coverage: 39.03% (-0.02%) from 39.05%
when pulling 8d08426 on proposal/deployment-architecture-k8s
into 2169e36 on main.

Signed-off-by: ChrisJBurns <29541485+ChrisJBurns@users.noreply.github.com>
Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 9, 2025

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 42.01%. Comparing base (2169e36) to head (8d08426).
⚠️ Report is 107 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1497      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   42.04%   42.01%   -0.04%     
==========================================
  Files         184      184              
  Lines       21649    21649              
==========================================
- Hits         9103     9096       -7     
- Misses      11858    11864       +6     
- Partials      688      689       +1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

Copy link
Collaborator

@dmartinol dmartinol left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/lgtm can't wait to see this architecture in action 👍

@ChrisJBurns ChrisJBurns merged commit 3180667 into main Sep 18, 2025
23 of 24 checks passed
@ChrisJBurns ChrisJBurns deleted the proposal/deployment-architecture-k8s branch September 18, 2025 12:49
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 this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants