-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 205
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
RFC: NodeOverlay #1305
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
RFC: NodeOverlay #1305
Conversation
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: ellistarn The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
(nit) In the PR description, the NodeOverlays all have the same |
Is this an overlay for Nodes, or an overlay for NodePools (maybe more than one NodePool, if we support matching via a selector)? |
In a real scenario with a saving plan, there is a commitment to a consistent amount of usage. Once the committed usage is exhausted, the price will revert to the on-demand rate. Does this PR take that into consideration? What I expect is:
|
@ellistarn We redefined the value of |
It sounds like you don't agree with the zone naming used in an existing integration. You can:
I don't think this PR would need to change to accommodate the ask. |
Thanks for trying to tackle this! I wonder if there is a cleaner way to represent the overlays to reduce sprawl. Thinking more generally, each dimension can be additive, adding a new custom resource, and/or adjustment, price changes or resource modification. (Assuming we aren't supporting deleting properties at this time). Price is a slight outlier from resources so we can separate out. Would it make sense to have at the highest level price and resources. Then subsection of adjustment and additions. Adjustment would support +/- percent or values and additions would just be a dict of new custom resources and values? |
@sftim I mean nodeoverlay can provide more overlay options, not just resources. For example, Lables. |
Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 9882748974Details
💛 - Coveralls |
Hi All I'm a bit confused about the relationship between kubernetes-sigs/karpenter and aws/karpenter-provider-aws. The lack of support for custom resource requests/limits is blocking me from autocalling with xilinx devices. I want to understand how to deploy this branch to EKS. Any help or understanding would be appreciated. |
This PR has been inactive for 14 days. StaleBot will close this stale PR after 14 more days of inactivity. |
This branch adds a “request for comments“. @ellistarn should the RFC and implementation land as one commit? Seems unusual. |
This PR has been inactive for 14 days. StaleBot will close this stale PR after 14 more days of inactivity. |
i think this shouldn't be closed. |
/lifecycle frozen |
@njtran: The In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. |
What is the progress now? Why does it seems not to be updated. |
This PR has been inactive for 14 days. StaleBot will close this stale PR after 14 more days of inactivity. |
commenting to make it not stale. this is a very important feature that will take Karpenter to the next level. |
Is there any update on this? |
This PR has been inactive for 14 days. StaleBot will close this stale PR after 14 more days of inactivity. |
Fixes:
vmMemoryOverheadPercent
aws/karpenter-provider-aws#5161Description
How was this change tested?
By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.