Define NodeSpec

[aronchick]

Description

As a user, I want to add my own nodes to Kubernetes, and make sure they meet the minimum requirements for running as a Kubernetes node so that I can use pre-approved images, and speed adding new compute. cc @yujuhong @dchen1107

Progress Tracker

• Before Alpha
  • Write and maintain draft quality doc
    • During development keep a doc up-to-date about the desired experience of the feature and how someone can try the feature in its current state. Think of it as the README of your new feature and a skeleton for the docs to be written before the Kubernetes release. Paste link to Google Doc: DOC-LINK
  • Design Approval
    • Design Proposal. This goes under docs/proposals. Doing a proposal as a PR allows line-by-line commenting from community, and creates the basis for later design documentation. Paste link to merged design proposal here: PROPOSAL-NUMBER
    • Initial API review (if API). Maybe same PR as design doc. PR-NUMBER
      • Any code that changes an API (/pkg/apis/...)
      • cc @kubernetes/api
    • Identify shepherd (your SIG lead and/or [email protected] will be able to help you). My Shepherd is: [email protected] (and/or GH Handle)
      • A shepherd is an individual who will help acquaint you with the process of getting your feature into the repo, identify reviewers and provide feedback on the feature. They are not (necessarily) the code reviewer of the feature, or tech lead for the area.
      • The shepherd is not responsible for showing up to Kubernetes-PM meetings and/or communicating if the feature is on-track to make the release goals. That is still your responsibility.
    • Identify secondary/backup contact point. My Secondary Contact Point is: [email protected] (and/or GH Handle)
  • Write (code + tests + docs) then get them merged. ALL-PR-NUMBERS
    • Code needs to be disabled by default. Verified by code OWNERS
    • Minimal testing
    • Minimal docs
      • cc @kubernetes/docs on docs PR
      • cc @kubernetes/feature-reviewers on this issue to get approval before checking this off
      • New apis: Glossary Section Item in the docs repo: kubernetes/kubernetes.github.io
    • Update release notes
• Before Beta
  • Testing is sufficient for beta
  • User docs with tutorials
    • Updated walkthrough / tutorial in the docs repo: kubernetes/kubernetes.github.io
    • cc @kubernetes/docs on docs PR
    • cc @kubernetes/feature-reviewers on this issue to get approval before checking this off
  • Thorough API review
    • cc @kubernetes/api
• Before Stable
  • docs/proposals/foo.md moved to docs/design/foo.md
    • cc @kubernetes/feature-reviewers on this issue to get approval before checking this off
  • Soak, load testing
  • detailed user docs and examples
    • cc @kubernetes/docs
    • cc @kubernetes/feature-reviewers on this issue to get approval before checking this off

FEATURE_STATUS is used for feature tracking and to be updated by @kubernetes/feature-reviewers.
FEATURE_STATUS: IN_DEVELOPMENT

More advice:

Design

• Once you get LGTM from a @kubernetes/feature-reviewers member, you can check this checkbox, and the reviewer will apply the "design-complete" label.

Coding

• Use as many PRs as you need. Write tests in the same or different PRs, as is convenient for you.
• As each PR is merged, add a comment to this issue referencing the PRs. Code goes in the https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes repository,
  and sometimes https://github.com/kubernetes/contrib, or other repos.
• When you are done with the code, apply the "code-complete" label.
• When the feature has user docs, please add a comment mentioning @kubernetes/feature-reviewers and they will
  check that the code matches the proposed feature and design, and that everything is done, and that there is adequate
  testing. They won't do detailed code review: that already happened when your PRs were reviewed.
  When that is done, you can check this box and the reviewer will apply the "code-complete" label.

Docs

• Write user docs and get them merged in.
• User docs go into https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes.github.io.
• When the feature has user docs, please add a comment mentioning @kubernetes/docs.
• When you get LGTM, you can check this checkbox, and the reviewer will apply the "docs-complete" label.

[justinsb]

NodeSpec is a confusing word (for me) - this is different from type NodeSpec in pkg/api/types.go, right?

[idvoretskyi]

cc @kubernetes/sig-node

[philips]

@justinsb I think it is stuff like the systemd NodeSpec https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/master/docs/proposals/kubelet-systemd.md

I am a little confused as well and hope that @yujuhong and @dchen1107 can help to clarify the description.

cc @derekwaynecarr

[vishh]

NodeSpec used to be a term that referred to node configuration that is compatible with the underlying runtime, OS and system components like systemd. It is meant to make it possible to easily add nodes to an existing kubernetes cluster. @dchen1107 might have more requirements for this feature.

[yujuhong]

What I remember about NodeSpec is consistent with what @vishh mentioned -- we need better documentations on the requirements of a node to run kubelet. Not sure if there are any action items beyond documentations.

[vishh]

NodeSpec requires enforcement of Allocatable, System and Kube cgroups
limits, and possibly disk space isolation too.

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Yu-Ju Hong [email protected]
wrote:

What I remember about NodeSpec is consistent with what @vishh
https://github.com/vishh mentioned -- we need better documentations on
the requirements of a node to run kubelet. Not sure if there are any action
items beyond documentations.

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#56 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGvIKHjay-ydHkTAv1ofgtqiBROZ2dUdks5qZoFMgaJpZM4JTI9l
.

[yujuhong]

NodeSpec requires enforcement of Allocatable, System and Kube cgroups
limits, and possibly disk space isolation too.

@vishh, this is marked for v1.4, so I doubt we'll be enforcing all those within the timeframe :-)
Let's see what Dawn has in mind.

[luxas]

cc @luxas

[derekwaynecarr]

I would suspect enforcement of system reserved, etc will come in 1.5. My
understanding is similar to @vishh

On Friday, July 29, 2016, Lucas Käldström [email protected] wrote:

cc @luxas https://github.com/luxas

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#56 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AF8dbA01g36q6eIHmmsWSsqG9CV-ysnUks5qagqSgaJpZM4JTI9l
.

[alex-mohr]

@dawnchen says 1.4 will do node conformance test, but parts of this will land in v1.5. (I think I got that Dawn?)

[dchen1107]

@alex-mohr yes, you are right. I will move this one to 1.5, and add node conformance test one here.

[idvoretskyi]

@dchen1107 can you update the actual status of the feature? Does it target alpha, beta or stable for 1.5?

[spiffxp]

@dchen1107 @idvoretskyi this needs an alpha-in-1.5, beta-in-1.5, or stable-in-1.5 label if it's going to be included in release notes for kubernetes 1.5; it has no stage listed in this spreadsheet... if it's not going into 1.5, we should remove it from that spreadsheet (yay multiple information sources)

[davidopp]

Can we please rename this to something other than NodeSpec? We already have NodeSpec here
https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/00458a12a8284fc10104b4e6ed6e8d6f278e1e04/pkg/api/types.go#L2412
where it means something totally different.

[idvoretskyi]

@dchen1107 can you review the @davidopp's suggestion?

[davidopp]

How about "node conformance spec" (which aligns it with the terminology in #84)?

[idvoretskyi]

@dchen1107 what is the status of the feature? Does it target 1.6?

[fejta-bot]

Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale.
Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close.

Prevent issues from auto-closing with an /lifecycle frozen comment.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or @fejta.
/lifecycle stale

[luxas]

From the issue description; I guess this is referring to the System Verification Check here: https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/tree/master/test/e2e_node/system

This has been merged at least for a year, and I think this issue is stale.
I'm gonna close it for now, please open a new issue with more details and an up-to-date issue description or reopen with more details if needed.

Thanks!