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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Set cardinality of ReplicationControllers -> Pods as (One -> Many) not (Many <-> Many) #11981

Closed
jayunit100 opened this issue Jul 29, 2015 · 8 comments
Closed

Set cardinality of ReplicationControllers -> Pods as (One -> Many) not (Many <-> Many) #11981

jayunit100 opened this issue Jul 29, 2015 · 8 comments

Comments

@jayunit100
Copy link
Member

From https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/google-containers/-pA2pIsM8yU... its possible that RC <-> Pod can be a many-many relationship, because RC's don't mark their territory !

This means RC's can fight over pods.

You can see the fallout of this in the GetPodControllers function in listers.go, where you have to return a list of replicationControllers managing a pod.

This is both counterintuitive and also can cause some bugs.
@jayunit100
Copy link
Member Author

cc @timothysc @rrati @lavalamp @bgrant0607 . This may/may not effect HA haven't thought it out entirely.

@lavalamp
Copy link
Member

What do you mean by "fix"? There's probably already issues about this, btw.

@jayunit100 jayunit100 changed the title Fix cardinality of ReplicationControllers -> Pods Set cardinality of ReplicationControllers -> Pods as (One -> Many) not (Many <-> Many) Jul 29, 2015
@jayunit100
Copy link
Member Author

Happy to close if another issue is out there.... I didnt see one though?

@mikedanese
Copy link
Member

We currently consider this to be user error. Results are deterministic for RC overlap after #10443 but the problem will be exacerbated when we add more pod controllers. I was looking for an "Ownership" issue but I couldn't find one.

@lavalamp
Copy link
Member

Hm, I can't find one either, I guess I'm thinking of various PRs. This is one of @bprashanth's favorite issues. ;)

See #10443 and #10524; also #2395 and #10477 for PRs we didn't merge.

@lavalamp
Copy link
Member

Oh, and I think this is completely orthogonal to HA.

On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 10:02 AM, jay vyas notifications@github.com wrote:

cc @timothysc https://github.com/timothysc @rrati
https://github.com/rrati @lavalamp https://github.com/lavalamp . This
may/may not effect HA haven't thought it out entirely.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#11981 (comment)
.

@yujuhong
Copy link
Contributor

I believe #2210 is the original issue

@jayunit100
Copy link
Member Author

Okay perfect. I'll close this guy and follow up in #2210 !

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
4 participants
@lavalamp @jayunit100 @mikedanese @yujuhong