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

Add resourcequotas and limitrange components. #439

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 26, 2021

Conversation

HumairAK
Copy link
Member

Related: #438

The resourcequotas aren't included in any of the namespaces yet, this is one way we can go about this. The idea is to include these like we do every other component within the cluster-scope/base/namespaces.

We don't have to use tiers if there are good arguments against it, this is a suggestion.

I just willy nilly picked amounts for each tier and limitrange. We can discuss what amounts are reasonable.

WDYT?

@sesheta sesheta added the size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. label Mar 25, 2021
Copy link
Member

@tumido tumido left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I very much dislike the names - what we're playing on here? Like.. gold, silver, bronze lol. 😄

What about renaming those to idk, small, medium, large, and so on? I like that better.

@HumairAK
Copy link
Member Author

Thoughts on the actual resource values for each tier?

@larsks
Copy link
Contributor

larsks commented Mar 26, 2021

@HumairAK does it make sense to look at the current resource utilization of the cluster to help determine reasonable quota values?

@HumairAK
Copy link
Member Author

HumairAK commented Mar 26, 2021

I've updated the values based on discussions in the #ops channel in slack. These values are based on current recent trends in usage for cpu/memory/storage, visualized via default ocp dashboards.

Copy link
Contributor

@4n4nd 4n4nd left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/lgtm

@sesheta sesheta added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Mar 26, 2021
Copy link
Member

@tumido tumido left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/lgtm
/approve

@sesheta
Copy link
Member

sesheta commented Mar 26, 2021

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: tumido

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

@sesheta sesheta added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Mar 26, 2021
@sesheta sesheta merged commit dce5041 into operate-first:master Mar 26, 2021
@HumairAK HumairAK deleted the resource_quotas branch September 16, 2021 17:16
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants