-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.5k
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
KEP-1472: storage capacity tracking: GA #3229
Conversation
b27f687
to
381df38
Compare
@@ -806,7 +806,7 @@ checks for events that describe the problem. | |||
- 5 installs | |||
- More rigorous forms of testing e.g., downgrade tests and scalability tests | |||
- Allowing time for feedback | |||
- Integration with [Cluster Autoscaler](https://github.com/kubernetes/autoscaler) | |||
- Design for support in [Cluster Autoscaler](https://github.com/kubernetes/autoscaler) |
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 is a slightly relaxed criteria: kubernetes/autoscaler#3887 shows that the current in-tree API is sufficient to enable autoscaling, the PR just hasn't been merged yet because SIG Autoscaling wanted more time to investigate how this can be made simpler for users.
The recommendation from the SIG Autoscaling meeting on 2022-02-21 was to not wait for that.
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.
Can you add a link to this PR in the KEP to show this is in progress?
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.
Can you update this section with a summary of the design?
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.
FYI @x13n @MaciekPytel
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.
Will do. It basically works exactly as alluded in that section: labeling of generated nodes must be modified to distinguish them from real ones and then manually created CSIStorageCapacity objects provide the information about those future nodes.
381df38
to
94c882e
Compare
@@ -934,7 +940,7 @@ consumption, increased latency), specifically | |||
|
|||
* **Were upgrade and rollback tested? Was upgrade->downgrade->upgrade path tested?** | |||
|
|||
Not yet, but will be done manually before transition to beta. | |||
This was done manually before transition to beta. |
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.
Any findings? Can you describe the environment in which it was run?
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.
No surprises. I used a kubeadm-based cluster in VMs. I've extended the text.
# The following PRR answers are required at beta release | ||
#metrics: | ||
# - my_feature_metric | ||
metrics: |
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.
Great!
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.
Just two more comments - once addressed this LGTM
This LGTM - I will wait with approving until you have SIG approval, please ping me when this happens. |
/lgtm |
/retest |
/lgtm |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: msau42, pohly, wojtek-t 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 |
In retrospective, you should ask the participating SIGs for each graduation, too. But in this case in particular, I would also have like to have the review of SIG autoscaling. |
Sorry, that wasn't intentional.
I explicitly asked them before even proposing the graduation. The feedback from them was to not delay on behalf of autoscaler (see February 21, 2022 meeting notes). |
One-line PR description: graduation to GA
Issue link: Storage Capacity Tracking #1472