Amir Alavi
Amir Alavi
In case of `RemovePodsViolatingTopologySpreadConstraint`, setting `nodeFit` to true or false will yield the same result. Which is confusing and should be (at minimum) documented
Can the commit message be changed to something along these lines: include RemovePodsViolatingTopologySpreadConstraint in DeschedulerPolicy for helm chart
To do leader election, it would have to create a lease. Which I would expect in dry-run mode that no resources are affected (only queried).
@damemi thoughts on a new param for `RemovePodsViolatingTopologySpreadConstraint` strategy such as below: ```yaml ... kind: "DeschedulerPolicy" strategies: "RemovePodsViolatingTopologySpreadConstraint": params: topologySpreadConstraint: # new struct defaultConstraints: # list of constraints to use...
/reopen /remove-lifecycle rotten
/close Ad described in the PR: >There's a possibility to get eviction loops since Scheduler will not have the PodTopologySpread definition. Moreover, if the KubeSchedulerConfiguration and descheduler default policy ever...
>Are my other nodes with taints being considered as part of the algorithm? Can't tell if this is expected behavior. No, the nodeFit algorithm should exclude the nodes which the...
Thanks for providing all the info, it is very helpful! /assign