Skip to content
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: Propose minValues to enforce Flexibility on NodeClaim Requests #966

Merged

Conversation

jonathan-innis
Copy link
Member

Fixes #N/A

Description

This RFC proposes a change where users can pass through minValues into their different requirement block keys to ensure that Karpenter maintains their request minimum flexibility requirements as it is scheduling pods to nodes. This is useful to maintain spot flexibility when Karpenter is launching new nodes.

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.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. label Jan 25, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Jan 25, 2024
@jonathan-innis jonathan-innis force-pushed the min-requirement-flexibility branch 3 times, most recently from af2fd6d to 93755c2 Compare January 25, 2024 23:51
@jonathan-innis jonathan-innis force-pushed the min-requirement-flexibility branch from 93755c2 to e28b01e Compare January 25, 2024 23:51
@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Jan 26, 2024

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 7806548238

Warning: This coverage report may be inaccurate.

We've detected an issue with your CI configuration that might affect the accuracy of this pull request's coverage report.
To ensure accuracy in future PRs, please see these guidelines.
A quick fix for this PR: rebase it; your next report should be accurate.

  • 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
  • 290 unchanged lines in 22 files lost coverage.
  • Overall coverage increased (+0.2%) to 80.566%

Files with Coverage Reduction New Missed Lines %
pkg/controllers/disruption/emptiness.go 1 97.83%
pkg/controllers/node/termination/terminator/terminator.go 1 94.03%
pkg/controllers/disruption/singlenodeconsolidation.go 2 83.05%
pkg/controllers/disruption/types.go 3 97.6%
pkg/controllers/nodeclaim/consistency/termination.go 3 83.33%
pkg/controllers/disruption/drift.go 4 93.75%
pkg/controllers/disruption/emptynodeconsolidation.go 4 89.55%
pkg/controllers/disruption/expiration.go 4 93.94%
pkg/controllers/disruption/pdblimits.go 4 89.29%
pkg/test/expectations/expectations.go 4 95.84%
Totals Coverage Status
Change from base Build 7658749655: 0.2%
Covered Lines: 7918
Relevant Lines: 9828

💛 - Coveralls

Copy link

@sftim sftim left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

My thoughts

designs/nodepool-requirement-flexibility.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
designs/nodepool-requirement-flexibility.md Show resolved Hide resolved
designs/nodepool-requirement-flexibility.md Show resolved Hide resolved
designs/nodepool-requirement-flexibility.md Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Contributor

@njtran njtran left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Overall, good design, we've already synced on most of my thoughts in the doc, but just posting them here for posterity

designs/nodepool-requirement-flexibility.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
designs/nodepool-requirement-flexibility.md Show resolved Hide resolved
designs/nodepool-requirement-flexibility.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
designs/nodepool-requirement-flexibility.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
designs/nodepool-requirement-flexibility.md Show resolved Hide resolved
designs/nodepool-requirement-flexibility.md Show resolved Hide resolved
designs/nodepool-requirement-flexibility.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
designs/nodepool-requirement-flexibility.md Show resolved Hide resolved
designs/nodepool-requirement-flexibility.md Show resolved Hide resolved
designs/nodepool-requirement-flexibility.md Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Contributor

@njtran njtran left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

/lgtm
/approve

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Feb 13, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: jonathan-innis, njtran

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:
  • OWNERS [jonathan-innis,njtran]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit 01c5b79 into kubernetes-sigs:main Feb 13, 2024
12 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants