-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 807
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
Add c6id and r6id adjusted limits to volume_limits.go #1961
Conversation
Correct volume limits for i4i instance types
Similar to m6id.* instance types, we need to make sure that volume limits are correct for c6id.* and r6id.* instance types.
Hi @talnevo. Thanks for your PR. I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the I understand the commands that are listed here. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
/ok-to-test |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thank you @talnevo!
/lgtm
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thank you for this @talnevo ! We will open a separate PR afterwards for other instance types like r6idn
, but for now we can merge this.
/approve |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: ConnorJC3 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 |
Code Coverage Diff
|
Is this a bug fix or adding new feature?
This is a bug fix.
What is this PR about? / Why do we need it?
This is to solve a situation where the Kubernetes scheduler sends more pods with volumes to a node than the volume limit allows because it is unaware of the true volume limit of nodes based on such instance types.
What testing is done?
No direct testing was performed: Kubernetes tests on nodes based on the r6id.32xlarge instance type have shown that there is a gap between the number of [volume requiring] pods the Kubernetes scheduler allows to run on a node and the number of pods that are able to attach their respective volume. Our research brought us to determine that this is the place to make the change that will fix this problem. Similar issues were observed last year with nodes based on m5d.16xlarge & m5d.24xlarge and later with m6id.16xlarge & m6id.32xlarge. These older issues no longer exist. We concluded that a change to volume_limits.go introduced in March 2022 fixed the problem for m5d instance types and our own PR for m6id in December 2022 fixed the issue for m6id instance types and we want to do the same for r6id and c6id based nodes.
A similar PR for i4i instance types was introduced in July 2023.