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

k6.spec.separate also applies affinity to starter-pod #168

Closed
cmergenthaler opened this issue Nov 18, 2022 · 1 comment · Fixed by #170
Closed

k6.spec.separate also applies affinity to starter-pod #168

cmergenthaler opened this issue Nov 18, 2022 · 1 comment · Fixed by #170
Labels
bug Something isn't working

Comments

@cmergenthaler
Copy link
Contributor

Brief summary

Hi,

it seems that when separating runners to different nodes, the starter-pod is also been scheduled on its own node. Is this intended?

k6-operator version or image

0.0.8

K6 YAML

apiVersion: k6.io/v1alpha1
kind: K6
metadata:
name: k6-test
spec:
parallelism: 2
separate: true

Other environment details (if applicable)

No response

Steps to reproduce the problem

Deploy k6 CRD with separate=true

Expected behaviour

AntiAffinity should only affect runner-pods not initializer and starter

Actual behaviour

AntiAffinity is applied to runner and starter pods

@yorugac
Copy link
Collaborator

yorugac commented Dec 3, 2022

To answer the question, separate is not anti-affinity: it is a shortcut option specific to k6-operator only while Kubernetes options affinity and anti-affinity can be defined as well. separate also overrides Kubernetes affinity option if it is defined. We probably should make that more explicit in the docs 🤔

That said, this is more a matter of agreement on the UX. separate option was added even before initializer pod appeared. However, both starter and initializer are rather short-living pods and are not acting as load generators, so it is reasonable to assume that a user of the operator probably cares only about runners' execution being spread out without using two additional nodes.

So I agree that this change would be an improvement 👍 Thanks for opening the issue and working on it @cmergenthaler!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants