Skip to content

Support specifying priority class for nifi pods #96

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

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
May 18, 2022

Conversation

cannonpalms
Copy link
Contributor

Q A
Bug fix? no
New feature? yes
API breaks? no
Deprecations? no
Related tickets fixes #X, partially #Y, mentioned in #Z
License Apache 2.0

What's in this PR?

This pod adds priorityClassName to NodeConfig to support customizing the priority class of nifi nodes.

Why?

Downtime due to k8s node terminations was prolonged due to the priority of nifi pods always being 0. This would result in nifi being the first pod stopped and the last pod rescheduled.

Additional context

Checklist

  • Implementation tested
  • Error handling code meets the guideline
  • Logging code meets the guideline
  • User guide and development docs updated (if needed)
  • Append changelog with changes

To Do

  • If the PR is not complete but you want to discuss the approach, list what remains to be done here

Copy link
Contributor

@erdrix erdrix left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can you just add a line in the changelog :) ?

@cannonpalms
Copy link
Contributor Author

Can you just add a line in the changelog :) ?

Sure thing, done :)

@mh013370
Copy link
Member

LGTM

@erdrix erdrix merged commit 68ef998 into konpyutaika:master May 18, 2022
erdrix added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 3, 2022
Support specifying priority class for nifi pods
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants