chore(rds): IO2 instance storage

[badmintoncryer]

Issue # (if applicable)

Closes #29396.

Reason for this change

AWS RDS now supports IO2 instance storage but CDK cannot configure it yet.

Description of changes

• Added IO2 storage type to the StorageType enum.
• Set default IOPS to 1000, which is minimum value in the allowed IOPS range.

Description of how you validated changes

Added both unit and integ test

Checklist

• My code adheres to the CONTRIBUTING GUIDE and DESIGN GUIDELINES

---

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache-2.0 license

[aws-cdk-automation]

The pull request linter has failed. See the aws-cdk-automation comment below for failure reasons. If you believe this pull request should receive an exemption, please comment and provide a justification.

A comment requesting an exemption should contain the text Exemption Request. Additionally, if clarification is needed add Clarification Request to a comment.

[badmintoncryer]

Exemption Request
I think it is unnecessary to update README.md.

✅ Updated pull request passes all PRLinter validations. Dismissing previous PRLinter review.

[go-to-k]

Looks good. I made one minor comment.

[go-to-k]

There is already a similar test here, so it might be better to write it there.

https://github.com/go-to-k/aws-cdk/blob/0605a8b869aac6bccc9631fcea719895ca397f73/packages/aws-cdk-lib/aws-rds/test/instance.test.ts#L2011

Or maybe we could create tests that are separate from this test ('gp3 storage type') to check at once if the defaultIops method outputs iops for each storage type. (Leave the test ('gp3 storage type') to check the storageThroughput, and change the test name to another name related to gp3 and storageThroughput.)

For example:

  test.each([
    [rds.StorageType.STANDARD, 'standard', 2000, undefined],
    [rds.StorageType.GP2, 'gp2', 2000, undefined],
    [rds.StorageType.GP3, 'gp3', 2000, 2000],
    [rds.StorageType.IO1, 'io1', 2000, 2000],
    [rds.StorageType.IO1, 'io1', undefined, 1000],
    [rds.StorageType.IO2, 'io2', 2000, 2000],
    [rds.StorageType.IO2, 'io2', undefined, 1000],
  ])('storage type and IOPS for %s storage type', (inStorageType, outStorageType, inIops, outIops) => {
    new rds.DatabaseInstance(stack, 'Instance', {
      engine: rds.DatabaseInstanceEngine.mysql({ version: rds.MysqlEngineVersion.VER_8_0_30 }),
      vpc,
      storageType: inStorageType,
      iops: inIops,
    });

    Template.fromStack(stack).hasResourceProperties('AWS::RDS::DBInstance', {
      StorageType: outStorageType,
      Iops: outIops ?? Match.absent(),
    });
  });

It may not be to your taste, which do you think would be better? Of course, the above code can be modified.

[badmintoncryer]

@go-to-k Thank you for the excellent suggestion!! I replaced unit test and renamed existing gp3 test.

[go-to-k]

Set default IOPS to 1000, which is minimum value in the allowed IOPS range.

By the way, what happens if we specify a value lower than 1000?
If CloudFormation fails, should we do that validation? (Or, Should we force to change the value to 1000?)

[badmintoncryer]

@go-to-k

Set default IOPS to 1000, which is minimum value in the allowed IOPS range.

By the way, what happens if we specify a value lower than 1000? If CloudFormation fails, should we do that validation? (Or, Should we force to change the value to 1000?)

Upon checking the behavior, it appears to fail during deployment.

integRdsInstanceIo2 | 9:52:23 PM | CREATE_FAILED        | AWS::RDS::DBInstance                        | Instance (InstanceC1063A87) Resource handler returned message: "Invalid iops value for engine name mysql and storage type io2: 500 (Service: Rds, Status Code: 400, Request ID: 2f806c31-840b-4774-86cf-26c3308a7631)" (RequestToken: d5833b29-5411-1712-8804-320a30504df9, HandlerErrorCode: InvalidRequest)

I think CDK should validate if the iops value within the range not only for io2 but also for other storage types.
(I believe it's better to raise an error rather than changing the value to a default, as this prevents users from recognizing the actual IOPS value.)

I'll create another issue about that and resolve it.
Is this approach acceptable to you?

[go-to-k]

@badmintoncryer Yes! I think so. I will approve this PR!

[badmintoncryer]

@go-to-k Thank you Hero!!

[aaythapa]

Thanks for the PR and to @go-to-k for a great review! I do agree we need validation for the different storage types, approving this for now

[mergify]

Thank you for contributing! Your pull request will be updated from main and then merged automatically (do not update manually, and be sure to allow changes to be pushed to your fork).

[mergify]

Thank you for contributing! Your pull request will be updated from main and then merged automatically (do not update manually, and be sure to allow changes to be pushed to your fork).

[aws-cdk-automation]

AWS CodeBuild CI Report

• CodeBuild project: AutoBuildv2Project1C6BFA3F-wQm2hXv2jqQv
• Commit ID: ec556b9
• Result: SUCCEEDED
• Build Logs (available for 30 days)

Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository

[mergify]

Thank you for contributing! Your pull request will be updated from main and then merged automatically (do not update manually, and be sure to allow changes to be pushed to your fork).