kubernetes
KEP-3953: Dynamic node resize
- One-line PR description: Dynamic node resize
- Issue link: https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/issues/3953
- Other comments:
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED
This pull-request has been approved by: Karthik-K-N Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please ask for approval from mrunalp. For more information see the Kubernetes Code Review Process.
The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment
Tying our hands with depending on cAdvisor feels limiting/inflexible. I think https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/120833 lists some relevant use cases, especially being pro-active in scaling down, i.e. scale down the k8s capacity before actually taking down the resources.
Tying our hands with depending on cAdvisor feels limiting/inflexible. I think kubernetes/kubernetes#120833 lists some relevant use cases, especially being pro-active in scaling down, i.e. scale down the k8s capacity before actually taking down the resources.
yeah, Thank you, As you suggested here, we will also explore on possibilities of using CRI to get the real time data.
Tying our hands with depending on cAdvisor feels limiting/inflexible. I think kubernetes/kubernetes#120833 lists some relevant use cases, especially being pro-active in scaling down, i.e. scale down the k8s capacity before actually taking down the resources.
@marquiz I am currently exploring using CRI way of fetching machine resources, I just wanted to better understand about the limitations or inflexible of cAdvisor you are thinking about.
Latest update: During the discussion of this KEP we identified that solely depending on cAdvisor might not be a right approach for many reasons(will be covered in new KEP). As a prerequisite we are trying to use CRI based way to fetch machine configurations a separate KEP will be created and linked here soon. If interested and would like to involve in that work please reach out to us. cc @marquiz
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all PRs.
This bot triages PRs according to the following rules:
- After 90d of inactivity,
lifecycle/staleis applied - After 30d of inactivity since
lifecycle/stalewas applied,lifecycle/rottenis applied - After 30d of inactivity since
lifecycle/rottenwas applied, the PR is closed
You can:
- Mark this PR as fresh with
/remove-lifecycle stale - Close this PR with
/close - Offer to help out with Issue Triage
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.
/lifecycle stale
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough active contributors to adequately respond to all PRs.
This bot triages PRs according to the following rules:
- After 90d of inactivity,
lifecycle/staleis applied - After 30d of inactivity since
lifecycle/stalewas applied,lifecycle/rottenis applied - After 30d of inactivity since
lifecycle/rottenwas applied, the PR is closed
You can:
- Mark this PR as fresh with
/remove-lifecycle rotten - Close this PR with
/close - Offer to help out with Issue Triage
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.
/lifecycle rotten
@Karthik-K-N: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:
| Test name | Commit | Details | Required | Rerun command |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| pull-enhancements-verify | 3ca5428b5e6f87db5e70fa67f862306218468503 | link | true | /test pull-enhancements-verify |
Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR.
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-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.