Update azurerm_linux|windows_virtual_machine_scale_set - Support platform_fault_domain_count, disk_iops_read_write and disk_mbps_read_write
#9262
Conversation
# Conflicts: # azurerm/internal/services/cosmos/cosmosdb_sql_stored_procedure_resource.go # azurerm/internal/services/policy/policy_remediation_resource.go # go.mod # go.sum # vendor/github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-for-go/version/version.go # vendor/modules.txt
ArcturusZhang
force-pushed
the
vmss-enhancement
branch
from
ac783db to
891dec2
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @ArcturusZhang - have a could questions i've left inline
| @@ -264,6 +266,10 @@ A `data_disk` block supports the following: | |||
|
|
|||
| ~> **NOTE:** Disk Encryption Sets are in Public Preview in a limited set of regions | |||
|
|
|||
| * `disk_iops_read_write` - (Optional) Specifies the Read-Write IOPS for this Data Disk. Only settable for UltraSSD disks. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would this make more sense as
| * `disk_iops_read_write` - (Optional) Specifies the Read-Write IOPS for this Data Disk. Only settable for UltraSSD disks. | |
| * `ultra_ssd_disk_iops_read_write` - (Optional) Specifies the Read-Write IOPS for this Data Disk. Only settable for UltraSSD disks. |
to make it clear it only applies to ultra ssds?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Well, I would love to do this change, but these two attributes already exist in the azurerm_managed_disk resource, would this cause any incosistency?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should leave these consistent with elsewhere in the provider, even though they only have meaning in one circumstance.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should eventually change both to ultra_ssd then - i'll just add a comment
|
Hi @katbyte I have resolved the comments, please have a look, thanks |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @ArcturusZhang - we should eventually change these properties to have ultra_ssd in them but that can be a 3.0 task - LGTM 👍
|
This has been released in version 2.37.0 of the provider. Please see the Terraform documentation on provider versioning or reach out if you need any assistance upgrading. As an example: provider "azurerm" {
version = "~> 2.37.0"
}
# ... other configuration ... |
|
I'm going to lock this issue because it has been closed for 30 days ⏳. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active issues. If you feel this issue should be reopened, we encourage creating a new issue linking back to this one for added context. If you feel I made an error 🤖 🙉 , please reach out to my human friends 👉 hashibot-feedback@hashicorp.com. Thanks! |
ghost
locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators
No description provided.