-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 128
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
zone affinity for uperf clients #811
Conversation
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.
Since this is required during scheduling, if the AZ only has a single node, will the client ever launch?
I think not since the policy is |
This is keeping the server and client in the same zone, so why can't we enforce it by keeping |
In bare metal environments by default there's only one zone, for example |
Yes so server and client will use the same zone in that case. |
Yeah, I think we need to move to preferred vs required. |
This PR is about requiring both server and client to be in the same AZ, not different. And since we will always have atleast 1 AZ, the required |
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.
@smalleni oh, that's right!; somehow I thought it was about deploying the clients/server pairs on different zones, makes sense now. LGTM
Note: With this affinity we need at least 2 nodes in a single zone. so airflow jobs worker counts have to be raised to 6. |
@smalleni just confirmed that baremetal nodes are not having this |
Or we apply the label prior to execution... I ran into this running these scripts against non-ocp deployments too (EKS and GKE in particular). |
Is this still relevant? If so, what is blocking it? Is there anything you can do to help move it forward? This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. |
Not sure if adding labels would be an appropriate solution without knowing the placement of machines. Never played with zoning on baremetal node before, happy to investigate further if that is a way. For time being lets make it |
makes sense to me |
Codecov Report
❗ Your organization is not using the GitHub App Integration. As a result you may experience degraded service beginning May 15th. Please install the Github App Integration for your organization. Read more. @@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #811 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 53.17% 53.17%
=======================================
Files 8 8
Lines 331 331
=======================================
Hits 176 176
Misses 155 155
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. |
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.
Ignoring FIO failures, lgtm!
Description
Pod affinity to keep server and client within same zone to avoid external variability.
Fixes