support for nodeSelector and tolerations#1831
support for nodeSelector and tolerations#1831krancour wants to merge 12 commits intoknative:masterfrom krancour:rev-scheduling
Conversation
|
/test pull-knative-serving-go-coverage |
|
I'm really not sure what's up with prow right now. I can't seem to get it to re-run coverage either by bumping it or amending the PR. Report above shows a 1.2% reduction in coverage. That's a lie. lol. This has 100% coverage. I just can't get the report to refresh. |
|
/retest |
|
any thoughts about adding i could also see node anti-affinity (nodes and azs) being a good default that knative sets up for applications to increase high availability of services. thoughts? |
bbrowning
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for taking this on! And extra thanks for the tests that cover the new behavior.
I don't love having to copy all the validateToleration from Kubernetes itself, but I also don't see an obviously better way to handle that.
I do have a couple of requested changes - one trivial and one a bit more work to ensure the spec and conformance tests stay in sync with changes to the api, as described at https://github.com/knative/serving/tree/master/docs/spec
config/config-network.yaml
Outdated
| # https://istio.io/docs/tasks/traffic-management/egress/ | ||
| # | ||
| istio.sidecar.includeOutboundIPRanges: "*" | ||
| istio.sidecar.includeOutboundIPRanges: "10.0.0.1/24" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This change was probably unintentionally included with this PR. I have the same local change and have almost accidentally included it in a PR as well 😄
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Whoops. That's embarrassing. Thank for catching it, @bbrowning.
| // that node. | ||
| // More info: https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/configuration/assign-pod-node/ | ||
| // +optional | ||
| NodeSelector map[string]string `json:"nodeSelector,omitempty"` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This api change (and the Tolerations below it) should include a corresponding change to the spec at https://github.com/knative/serving/blob/master/docs/spec/spec.md and the conformance tests at https://github.com/knative/serving/tree/master/test/conformance, if applicable.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@bbrowning I updated docs just now.
I'm really not sure whether the conformance tests are applicable here, and if so, I'm not sure where to begin.
|
@krancour could you give a brief status here? It seems to be mostly there implementationwise. I'd be happy to help push it through if you don't have time to finish it up. |
|
@markusthoemmes sorry... I completely lost track of it. I'll be happy to clean this up and rebase this afternoon. |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: krancour If they are not already assigned, you can assign the PR to them by writing The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
|
I don't quite understand the "pull-knative-serving-build-tests" failure. |
|
/retest |
|
@bbrowning @mattmoor can either of you give me some insight on why the |
|
@krancour it seems like a linting error in a markdown: |
|
The following is the coverage report on pkg/.
|
|
@markusthoemmes I'm not sure where you got that from. I couldn't find those same lines in the logs from the tests. Regardless, thank you. I fixed the lint issue in the docs. |
|
meh. I missed the update and now we're back in merge conflict land again :/ |
|
I don't have the time to address those right now, unfortunately. It could be a while. |
|
@krancour Do you mind if I pick this up and rebase it? We need to make sure when merging that you get the proper credits for the commits but that should be solvable. |
|
@markusthoemmes go for it. Don't worry about credit. I value the change getting in more than credit for making it. |
|
@krancour opened a new PR with the rebased version. Would you please add a comment there that you're okay with me reopening it? |
|
Closing because #3467 is more up to date. |
Fixes #1816
Thought this wouldn't be too controversial, so @jeremyrickard and I took a crack at it.
Proposed Changes
nodeSelectorandtolerationsin revision spec