-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
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
📖Update spot instances proposal with interruptible label setting #3817
📖Update spot instances proposal with interruptible label setting #3817
Conversation
Hi @alexander-demichev. Thanks for your PR. I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the I understand the commands that are listed here. 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/test-infra repository. |
3. Machine looks at the infra machine's status (for interruptible) and adds a label to the node. | ||
4. Machine controller ensures the interruptible label is always present on the Node if Machine.status.interruptible is true. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do we need to have Machine.Status.Interuptible
or can we always rely on the InfraMachine status as source of truth? Are we copying this for improved UX?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I had originally suggested copying from InfraMachine to Machine, but removed it after chatting with @vincepri (trying to avoid copying when it's not required). We can update this line to say "if InfraMachine.status.interruptible is true".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
One suggestion for improvement, otherwise LGTM
Based on the discussion here https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api/pull/3668 ([1](https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api/pull/3668#issuecomment-696143653), [2](https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api/pull/3668#issuecomment-696862994).) we can do following: | ||
1. User creates InfraMachine with whatever spec field(s) are required for that provider to indicate it's interruptible. | ||
2. Infra provider sets InfraMachine.status.interruptible=true | ||
3. Machine looks at the infra machine's status (for interruptible) and adds a label to the node. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This might be clearer? I feel like we can probably combine 3 + 4, WDYT?
3. Machine looks at the infra machine's status (for interruptible) and adds a label to the node. | |
3. Machine controller looks at InfraMachine.status.interruptible and ensures a label is set on the node if it is true. |
/lgtm |
/retest |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: ncdc 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 |
/retest |
/retest |
What this PR does / why we need it:
This PR updates spot instances proposal with an interruptible label setting.
#3504