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

Prefer Scheduling on OCP Infra Nodes #109

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jan 8, 2024

Conversation

razo7
Copy link
Member

@razo7 razo7 commented Dec 31, 2023

Infra nodes are a better fit than control plane nodes on OCP, thus we prefer NMO pod to be scheduled on an infra node over a control plane node.

See pod scheduling weight and Infra Node.

ECOPROJECT-1660

Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Dec 31, 2023

Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request.
If you want CI signal for your change, please convert it to an actual PR.
You can still manually trigger a test run with /test all

Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Dec 31, 2023

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: razo7

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

@razo7
Copy link
Member Author

razo7 commented Dec 31, 2023

/test 4.14-openshift-e2e
/test 4.15-openshift-e2e

Infra nodes are a better fit than control plane nodes on OCP, thus we prefer NMO pod to be scheduled on an infra node over a control plane node
@razo7
Copy link
Member Author

razo7 commented Dec 31, 2023

/test 4.15-openshift-e2e

preference:
matchExpressions:
- key: node-role.kubernetes.io/infra
operator: In
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think using Exists without values is a safer bet

- key: node-role.kubernetes.io/master
operator: Exists
- matchExpressions:
operator: In
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

In doesn't make sense without values, this needs to be Exists

- key: node-role.kubernetes.io/control-plane
operator: Exists
operator: In
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

same here

- effect: NoSchedule
key: node-role.kubernetes.io/infra
operator: Exists
value: reserved
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

value does not make sense with Exists, only with Equal. But using no value is better as suggested above, I'd remove value

- effect: NoExecute
key: node-role.kubernetes.io/infra
operator: Exists
value: reserved
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

same

Safer and relaxed and taint conditions using exist rather than empty In or specefic In
@razo7
Copy link
Member Author

razo7 commented Jan 7, 2024

/test 4.14-openshift-e2e
/test 4.15-openshift-e2e

1 similar comment
@razo7
Copy link
Member Author

razo7 commented Jan 7, 2024

/test 4.14-openshift-e2e
/test 4.15-openshift-e2e

@slintes
Copy link
Member

slintes commented Jan 8, 2024

/lgtm

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm label Jan 8, 2024
@razo7 razo7 marked this pull request as ready for review January 8, 2024 10:35
@razo7
Copy link
Member Author

razo7 commented Jan 8, 2024

/retest

@openshift-merge-bot openshift-merge-bot bot merged commit a327b96 into medik8s:main Jan 8, 2024
14 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants