Assigned
Status Update
Comments
kn...@google.com <kn...@google.com> #2
Thank you for submitting this feature request. I already notified our engineering team about this case. Future update(s) will be posted here.
na...@gmail.com <na...@gmail.com> #3
Hi. Do you have any updates on this issue? We're moving from AWS to GCP and we stumbled upon this problem. Thanks.
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]> #4
Hi, same issue here. Any updates on this ?
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]> #5
We're also moving away from AWS to GCP and stumbled upon this problem. Please help to look into this. Thanks!
ma...@soundtracktor.com <ma...@soundtracktor.com> #6
Same issue here
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]> #7
Facing the same issue
rs...@parkerici.org <rs...@parkerici.org> #8
Facing the same issue here too.
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]> #9
For what it's worth you don't have to run the cloudsql in a sidecar format, it works fine as a separate deploy at least for postgresql. It will bind to external ports and you can expose it as a service in k8s. I've never encountered throughput or connection issues.
We actually run it along with pgbouncer in a pod as a deployment with anti-affinity and just have all our apps connect to either depending on if they need prepared statements or not.
We actually run it along with pgbouncer in a pod as a deployment with anti-affinity and just have all our apps connect to either depending on if they need prepared statements or not.
je...@greensync.com.au <je...@greensync.com.au> #10
I have a helm chart that deploys everything needed for the app and I was hoping to run migrations as a job with a 'pre-install' hook that could migrate the DB before rest of the deployment.
Having to install cloudsql proxies as a seperate deployment doesn't seem ideal..
I could download the cloudsql-proxy libraries and start the proxy manually.
Having to install cloudsql proxies as a seperate deployment doesn't seem ideal..
I could download the cloudsql-proxy libraries and start the proxy manually.
to...@baucloud.com <to...@baucloud.com> #11
I am a bit surprised, as Google advertises the whole sidecar pattern (especially in context with Cloud SQL) even on conferences (e.g. Google Cloud Summit in Munich 2017)
And then one realizes, that it has significant drawbacks...
And then one realizes, that it has significant drawbacks...
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]> #12
How is still not resolved? Google Support still recommend the sidecar sqlproxy, but this does not work well for jobs and does not terminate correctly,
only solution would be to use CloudSQL Private IP's support once it's stable.
only solution would be to use CloudSQL Private IP's support once it's stable.
za...@bzdyl.net <za...@bzdyl.net> #13
CloudSQL now supports private IPs: https://cloud.google.com/sql/docs/mysql/private-ip . With this it's possible to create a VPC peering between CloudSQL instance VPC and your GKE cluster network so your pods can connect to CloudSQL instance directly using the private IP.
ab...@abevoelker.com <ab...@abevoelker.com> #14
Yep I've been using private networking since November and it's been great. I don't see a way to close my own issue but I believe private networking / VPC has solved my issue.
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]> #15
This is also an issue for Jobs/Pods that use Istio Proxy injection. We're encountering this issue when running Helm Tests (uses Pods that run to completion) and with batch Jobs using Cloud SQL Proxy and Istio Proxy.
Description
Please make it easier to write Jobs/CronJobs that need access to Cloud SQL.
Alternatively how about eliminating the need for the sidecar container to access the Cloud SQL instance (because right about now I'm thinking it's simpler to pay for a different managed Postgres solution like ElephantSQL than to write really hacky k8s specs).