Skip to content
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

CA FAQ: clarify the point about scheduling constraints blocking scale-down #6567

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 27, 2024

Conversation

towca
Copy link
Collaborator

@towca towca commented Feb 26, 2024

Prompted by #6208

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: towca

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added area/cluster-autoscaler cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Feb 26, 2024
@towca towca mentioned this pull request Feb 26, 2024
@@ -96,8 +96,13 @@ Cluster Autoscaler decreases the size of the cluster when some nodes are consist
"cluster-autoscaler.kubernetes.io/safe-to-evict-local-volumes": "volume-1,volume-2,.."
```
and all of the pod's local volumes are listed in the annotation value.
* Pods that cannot be moved elsewhere due to various constraints (lack of resources, non-matching node selectors or affinity,
matching anti-affinity, etc)
* Pods that cannot be moved elsewhere due to scheduling constraints. CA simulates kube-scheduler behavior, and if there's no other node where a given pod can schedule, the pod's node won't be scaled down.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
* Pods that cannot be moved elsewhere due to scheduling constraints. CA simulates kube-scheduler behavior, and if there's no other node where a given pod can schedule, the pod's node won't be scaled down.
* Pods that cannot be moved elsewhere due to scheduling constraints. CA simulates
kube-scheduler behavior, and if there's no other node where a given pod can schedule, the
pod's node won't be scaled down.

Copy link
Contributor

@Shubham82 Shubham82 Feb 27, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just a small nit: Wrap the line

* Pods that cannot be moved elsewhere due to various constraints (lack of resources, non-matching node selectors or affinity,
matching anti-affinity, etc)
* Pods that cannot be moved elsewhere due to scheduling constraints. CA simulates kube-scheduler behavior, and if there's no other node where a given pod can schedule, the pod's node won't be scaled down.
* This can be particularly visible if a given workloads' pods are configured to only fit one pod per node on some subset of nodes. Such pods will always block CA from scaling down their nodes, because all
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
* This can be particularly visible if a given workloads' pods are configured to only fit one pod per node on some subset of nodes. Such pods will always block CA from scaling down their nodes, because all
* This can be particularly visible if a given workloads' pods are configured to only fit
one pod per node on some subset of nodes. Such pods will always block CA from scaling
down their nodes, because all

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

nit: Wrap the line

@BigDarkClown
Copy link
Contributor

/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Feb 27, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit 5232e53 into master Feb 27, 2024
7 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. area/cluster-autoscaler cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants