Moving windows resource management to separate page

[marosset]

Signed-off-by: Mark Rossetti [email protected]

Moving windows resource management topics to a separate page.

Part of #31428

/label refactor
/sig windows

[netlify]

👷 Deploy Preview for kubernetes-io-vnext-staging processing.

🔨 Explore the source changes: f217a54

🔍 Inspect the deploy log: https://app.netlify.com/sites/kubernetes-io-vnext-staging/deploys/6215534d7c66320007033b0c

[sftim]

How about combining this information into https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/configuration/manage-resources-containers/ ?

Although Kubernetes started out as Linux only, Windows support is now GA and a cluster with only Windows nodes is a supported configuration.

[marosset]

How about combining this information into https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/configuration/manage-resources-containers/ ?

Although Kubernetes started out as Linux only, Windows support is now GA and a cluster with only Windows nodes is a supported configuration.

I don't think clusters with only Windows nodes is a supported configuration.
Most of the control plane components can at least compile on Windows but we do not test or advocate running any of them on Windows nodes (AFAIK)

I will try to merge information in this PR into the existing manage-resources-containers page.

[sftim]

I don't think clusters with only Windows nodes is a supported configuration.

I think it actually is, because you can run the control plane on Linux on, eg, bare metal with only the nodes running Windows. We recommend running the control plane in containers but you don't actually have to.

[jihoon-seo]

Preview: https://deploy-preview-31850--kubernetes-io-vnext-staging.netlify.app/docs/concepts/configuration/windows-resource-management/

[marosset]

I don't think clusters with only Windows nodes is a supported configuration.

I think it actually is, because you can run the control plane on Linux on, eg, bare metal with only the nodes running Windows. We recommend running the control plane in containers but you don't actually have to.

I think this depends on the definition of supported :)

I'll try to get these updates merged into the existing resource management page today or tomorrow.

[tengqm]

I see no blocking issues on the PR. Let's move this forward.
/lgtm
/approve

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: tengqm

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:

• content/en/OWNERS [tengqm]

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]

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: 4c13aefb22f34bffd34112707fc5a76eafd2ed01