From fe4de971a3c334a72116b8d60a4d4bd1d44ca1d1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Marcus Noble Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2021 05:09:58 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] fix images --- src/posts/2021-08-08-multicloud-kubernetes.md | 25 +++++++++++++++++++ templates/post.html | 6 +++++ 2 files changed, 31 insertions(+) diff --git a/src/posts/2021-08-08-multicloud-kubernetes.md b/src/posts/2021-08-08-multicloud-kubernetes.md index a321e10..e88e77c 100644 --- a/src/posts/2021-08-08-multicloud-kubernetes.md +++ b/src/posts/2021-08-08-multicloud-kubernetes.md @@ -236,32 +236,57 @@ Ok, now for the results... First up we have all deployments scheduled onto the **Scaleway-ams1** node: +
+ ![](/images/kosmos/Latency-1.png) +
Scaleway ams1
+
+ You can see this is fairly bumpy to start with as the pods get started but all fairly low as we'd expect. Next up we have all pods scheduled onto the **Scaleway-par1** node: +
+ ![](/images/kosmos/Latency-2.png) +
Scaleway par1
+
+ This is the same region as our control plane. All the latencies are very low with only a little bit of fluctuation. We then have the first of our external nodes - **Civo-lon1**: +
+ ![](/images/kosmos/Latency-3.png) +
Civo lon1
+
+ This seems to have much more fluctuation in the latency but overall still showing as very low with a lot of requests still inline with those nodes hosted on Scaleway. The last node to try is **Civo-nyc1**: +
+ ![](/images/kosmos/Latency-4.png) +
Civo nyc1
+
+ This one looks to be trending slightly slower but still within the same sort of range as the other nodes. It's worth pointing out that this node is physically located the furthest away with all the other nodes located within Europe. Finally, as we have 4 nodes and 4 different deployments, I wanted to test how things would look with the application spread over all the available nodes. This next result shows the latencies with each of the deployments scheduled to a different node: +
+ ![](/images/kosmos/Latency-5.png) +
Spread over all nodes
+
+ Right away you can see that this have much more latency with the Y-axis being at least double that of any of the previous results. That being said, it is still all within 100ms and for this very small test at least within an acceptable range. ## Final Thoughts diff --git a/templates/post.html b/templates/post.html index 19a8610..4903d68 100644 --- a/templates/post.html +++ b/templates/post.html @@ -67,6 +67,12 @@ }); }); } + + [...document.querySelectorAll('figure img')].forEach(function(img) { + img.addEventListener('click', function() { + window.open(img.getAttribute("src"), "_blank"); + }); + });