GCE: Allow node count to exceed GCE TargetPool maximums #25178
Merged
+208
−23
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
zmerlynn
added
team/cluster
release-note
k8s-github-robot
added
the
size/M
|
cc/ @bprashanth |
| @@ -68,6 +69,9 @@ const ( | |||
| // are iterated through to prevent infinite loops if the API | |||
| // were to continuously return a nextPageToken. | |||
| maxPages = 25 | |||
|
|
|||
| // TargetPools can only support 1000 VMs. | |||
| maxInstancesPerTargetPool = 1000 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@kubernetes/goog-cluster fyi
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Internal b/28566577, FYI
|
I'm OK with this approach until we have real answer(s) |
|
Would be nice to functionize this logic and have a unit test? |
|
@thockin: Can do. Frustratingly, the two shuffles operate in slightly different type spaces right now ( |
zmerlynn
force-pushed
the
random_max_target_pools
branch
from
b99b8f2 to
9ee563b
Compare
|
PTAL. Pulled shuffler out to util, added tests for both paths. |
k8s-github-robot
added
size/L
| }, | ||
| } | ||
| for _, tc := range tests { | ||
| rand.Seed(5) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
comment on this seed value and the "want" values above?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Done. I used prose to comment the test blocks, hopefully that was good.
|
LGTM just a couple nits. Please self-LGTM when done |
If we would exceeded the TargetPool API maximums, instead just randomly select some subsection of the nodes to include in the TP instead.
zmerlynn
force-pushed
the
random_max_target_pools
branch
from
9ee563b to
faf0c44
Compare
zmerlynn
added
lgtm
wojtek-t
added
priority/critical-urgent
|
@k8s-bot test this [submit-queue is verifying that this PR is safe to merge] |
|
LGTM |
|
GCE e2e build/test passed for commit faf0c44. |
|
Automatic merge from submit-queue |
zmerlynn
added a commit
to zmerlynn/kubernetes
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 22, 2016
…rest Tested with 2000 nodes, this actually meets the GCE API specifications (which is nutty). Previous PR (kubernetes#25178) was based on a mistaken understanding of a poorly documented set of limitations, and even poorer testing, for which I am embarassed.
k8s-github-robot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 22, 2016
Automatic merge from submit-queue GCE provider: Create TargetPool with 200 instances, then update with rest GCE provider: Create TargetPool with 200 instances, then update with rest Tested with 2000 nodes, this actually meets the GCE API specifications (which is nutty). Previous PR (#25178) was based on a mistaken understanding of a poorly documented set of limitations, and even poorer testing, for which I am embarassed. Also includes the revert of #25178 (review commits separately). []()
zmerlynn
added a commit
to zmerlynn/kubernetes
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 22, 2016
…rest Tested with 2000 nodes, this actually meets the GCE API specifications (which is nutty). Previous PR (kubernetes#25178) was based on a mistaken understanding of a poorly documented set of limitations, and even poorer testing, for which I am embarassed.
zmerlynn
added a commit
to zmerlynn/kubernetes
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 22, 2016
…rest Tested with 2000 nodes, this actually meets the GCE API specifications (which is nutty). Previous PR (kubernetes#25178) was based on a mistaken understanding of a poorly documented set of limitations, and even poorer testing, for which I am embarassed.
shyamjvs
pushed a commit
to shyamjvs/kubernetes
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 1, 2016
…rest Tested with 2000 nodes, this actually meets the GCE API specifications (which is nutty). Previous PR (kubernetes#25178) was based on a mistaken understanding of a poorly documented set of limitations, and even poorer testing, for which I am embarassed.
shouhong
pushed a commit
to shouhong/kubernetes
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 14, 2017
…rest Tested with 2000 nodes, this actually meets the GCE API specifications (which is nutty). Previous PR (kubernetes#25178) was based on a mistaken understanding of a poorly documented set of limitations, and even poorer testing, for which I am embarassed.
openshift-publish-robot
pushed a commit
to openshift/kubernetes
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 6, 2020
…herry-pick-25153-to-release-4.5 [release-4.5] Bug 1849340: 4.6: UPSTREAM: 91748: FieldManager: Reset if we receive nil or a list with one Origin-commit: 002a51f51065024cddd18d373bf7f80aa30a36de
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
If we would exceeded the TargetPool API maximums, instead just
randomly select some subsection of the nodes to include in the TP
instead.