OSDOCS-3976: Add NodeTuning capability and Capability set v4.13 #57602
Conversation
openshift-ci-robot
added
the
jira/valid-reference
|
@dagrayvid: This pull request references OSDOCS-3976 which is a valid jira issue. In response to this:
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. |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
size/S
dagrayvid
changed the title
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
do-not-merge/work-in-progress
|
@sheriff-rh This is currently a draft, I'm not sure if got the asciidoc conditional statements quite right. |
installing/cluster-capabilities.adoc
Outdated
|
|
||
| [role="_additional-resources"] | ||
| .Additional resources | ||
| * xref:../scalability-and-performance/using-node-tuning-operator.adoc[Using the Node Tuning Operator] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It took me a second to catch this - folders are underscores (scalability_and_performance), files are dashes (using-node-tuning-operator.adoc). Additionally, we have to use anchors for file paths to work with our different distribution tools. I believe it's the customer portal, specifically, that requires anchors.
* xref:../scalability_and_performance/using-node-tuning-operator.adoc#using-node-tuning-operator[Using the Node Tuning Operator]
dagrayvid
force-pushed
the
optional-nto
branch
2 times, most recently
from
a97af9b
to
9ea3bf0
Compare
|
Local build previews (VPN required): |
|
🤖 Updated build preview is available at: Build log: https://circleci.com/gh/ocpdocs-previewbot/openshift-docs/12096 |
dagrayvid
changed the title
|
@jmencak @ashishkamra PTAL |
openshift-ci
bot
removed
the
do-not-merge/work-in-progress
|
@liqcui PTAL as well (We need QE review on all docs PRs except typos) |
It would help having direct links to the changed content in the PR description as required by the template. I was using old links provided by Andrew and saw a typo fixed by David's latest commit. So I assume the content is fine now. |
|
@dagrayvid: This pull request references OSDOCS-3976 which is a valid jira issue. In response to this:
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. |
|
@dagrayvid: This pull request references OSDOCS-3976 which is a valid jira issue. In response to this:
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. |
Sorry about that, I meant to add it once the preview was generated but forgot to. It is added now. |
|
Thank you for the changes, David. |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
do-not-merge/hold
modules/node-tuning-operator.adoc
Outdated
| The Node Tuning Operator helps you manage node-level tuning by orchestrating the TuneD daemon and achieves low latency performance by using the Performance Profile controller. The majority of high-performance applications require some level of kernel tuning. The Node Tuning Operator provides a unified management interface to users of node-level sysctls and more flexibility to add custom tuning specified by user needs. | ||
|
|
||
| ifdef::cluster-caps[] | ||
| If you disable the NodeTuning capability, some tuning settings will not be applied to the control-plane Nodes which may limit the scalability and performance of large clusters with over 900 Nodes or 900 Routes. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The overall content looks good to me, but there is a little confusion in below content.
If you disable the NodeTuning capability, some tuning settings will not be applied to the control-plane Nodes which may limit the scalability and performance of large clusters with over 900 Nodes or 900 Routes.
This should be be applied to the control-plane. or control-plane Nodes? missing a period '.'
<large clusters with over 900 Nodes or 900 Routes. > should be <large clusters with over 900 nodes or 900 routes.>, does we should keep first letter capital for Node and Route ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The original sentence totally makes sense to me and I believe the capitalization is correct. However, I can imagine we can perhaps split it into two smaller sentences and end the first one with "applied to the control-plane Nodes." to make the content easier to interpret.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I will confirm as part of the peer review process, but I think nodes and routes can be lower case. https://github.com/openshift/openshift-docs/blob/main/contributing_to_docs/doc_guidelines.adoc#api-object-formatting
PascalCase formatting applies when discussing Kubernetes objects: https://github.com/openshift/openshift-docs/blob/main/contributing_to_docs/doc_guidelines.adoc#object-references
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I split this into two sentences and lower-cased nodes and routes.
sheriff-rh
removed
the
do-not-merge/hold
|
@dagrayvid: This pull request references OSDOCS-3976 which is a valid jira issue. In response to this:
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. |
sheriff-rh
added
the
peer-review-needed
kelbrown20
added
the
peer-review-in-progress
| ifdef::operators[] | ||
| [discrete] | ||
| == Purpose | ||
| endif::operators[] | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
All the other sections in this doc still have this Purpose title like here. I think that title should be added for consistency. It should just be something like
[discrete]
== Purpose
on line 32. It might work adding your parameter cluster-caps to the ifdef thats there, but we'd have to check that the title size is consistent. You could also look at the other modules that do this for reference, ex: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/openshift/openshift-docs/main/modules/operator-marketplace.adoc
modules/node-tuning-operator.adoc
Outdated
| ifdef::operators[] | ||
| [discrete] | ||
| == Purpose | ||
| endif::operators[] | ||
|
|
||
| ifdef::cluster-caps[] | ||
| The Node Tuning Operator provides the features for the `NodeTuning` capability. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| The Node Tuning Operator provides the features for the `NodeTuning` capability. | |
| The Node Tuning Operator provides features for the `NodeTuning` capability. |
modules/node-tuning-operator.adoc
Outdated
| The Node Tuning Operator helps you manage node-level tuning by orchestrating the TuneD daemon and achieves low latency performance by using the Performance Profile controller. The majority of high-performance applications require some level of kernel tuning. The Node Tuning Operator provides a unified management interface to users of node-level sysctls and more flexibility to add custom tuning specified by user needs. | ||
|
|
||
| ifdef::cluster-caps[] | ||
| If you disable the NodeTuning capability, some default tuning settings will not be applied to the control-plane nodes. This may limit the scalability and performance of large clusters with over 900 nodes or 900 routes. |
openshift-ci
bot
added
size/M
|
/lgtm |
sheriff-rh
removed
the
peer-review-in-progress
|
LGTM - Merging! Edit: having technical difficulties 🤔 will merge ASAP. |
sheriff-rh
added
peer-review-needed
|
/cherrypick enterprise-4.13 |
|
@sheriff-rh: new pull request created: #57769 In response to this:
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. |
Version(s):
4.13
Issue:
OSDOCS-3976
PSAP-741
Link to docs preview:
https://57602--docspreview.netlify.app/openshift-enterprise/latest/installing/cluster-capabilities.html#about-node-tuning-operator_cluster-capabilities
QE review:
Additional information: