-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 927
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
How to define Resource Models for a Cluster with Multiple Taints in Karmada #3869
Comments
You mean that each cluster has several distinct labels. And pod distribution depends on these labels, right? |
Hi @kangteng525, Do I understand correctly? |
Hi @jwcesign , Yes, you are correct. Cluster1 has 100CPU based on taint 1 and 100CPU based on taint 2, while cluster2 has 200CPU only on taint 1. So if scheduling workloads with tolerance on taint 1, the ratio between these 2 clusters should be 1:2, and if scheduling workloads with tolerance on taint 2, it should be 1:0. |
Hi @kangteng525, The related code is here: karmada/pkg/estimator/server/estimate.go Line 42 in 09259b1
|
Hi @jwcesign , Thanks a lot! And one more question, if multiple propagation policies(for example A,B,C) running at once, it seems Thanks, |
Hi, @kangteng525
Yes
Yes
Yes, it's possible, when some RB is scheduled and the workers are still not synced to member clusters, the scheduler may choose the same cluster(but actually the resource may not be enough after the worker is synced) But we have application-failover, which could reschedule the pending workload to other clusters. |
In a typical cluster, multiple taints can exist across different nodes. Here's an example scenario:
A cluster consisting of 5000 nodes where:
In this scenario, for any given taint (for example, "taint1"), the effective node count is 1000, not 5000, meaning the available resources are effectively 1/5 of the total.
Does Karmada support the definition of resource models in such scenarios where a cluster has multiple taints? If so, could you provide guidance on how we can define the spec for this scenario?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: