KEP-5526: Pod Level Resource Managers blog 1.36#53001
KEP-5526: Pod Level Resource Managers blog 1.36#53001KevinTMtz wants to merge 1 commit intokubernetes:mainfrom
Conversation
k8s-ci-robot
added
do-not-merge/work-in-progress
✅ Pull request preview available for checkingBuilt without sensitive environment variables
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration. |
|
Hi @KevinTMtz thank you for opening this PR for the Feature Blog! |
|
@graz-dev: The label(s) DetailsIn response to this:
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-sigs/prow repository. |
|
/area blog |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
area/blog
|
There's no content, and v1.35 has shipped, so I'll just close this. /close |
|
/reopen |
|
@KevinTMtz: Reopened this PR. DetailsIn response to this:
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-sigs/prow repository. |
|
Hi @KevinTMtz 👋 v1.36 Communications team here, @ndixita as author of #54551, I'd like you to be a writing buddy for @KevinTMtz on this PR. Please:
|
KevinTMtz
force-pushed
the
blog-entry-KEP-5526
branch
from
b5a676a to
c714d35
Compare
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
k8s-ci-robot
added
size/L
KevinTMtz
changed the title
✅ Pull request preview available for checkingBuilt without sensitive environment variables
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration. |
KevinTMtz
force-pushed
the
blog-entry-KEP-5526
branch
from
c714d35 to
622d2ac
Compare
k8s-ci-robot
removed
the
do-not-merge/work-in-progress
|
/assign @ffromani |
|
/assign @ndixita |
KevinTMtz
force-pushed
the
blog-entry-KEP-5526
branch
from
622d2ac to
76ed4dc
Compare
ffromani
left a comment
ffromani
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The content is nice but matches too much our official docs, which is not bad per se, but blog posts should IMO be more introductionary in nature and make users aware of features linking them to their use cases.
So, I'd add more real (or realistic) examples matching user stories, to make the content more engaging and guide the users to the feature.
At the same time, you can limit the details to the top highlights and defer to the official docs for more in-depth docs.
| - **Exclusive Containers:** Containers granted exclusive CPU slices have their | ||
| CPU CFS quota enforcement disabled (`ResourceIsolationContainer`), allowing | ||
| them to run without being throttled by the Linux scheduler. | ||
| - **Pod Shared Pool Containers:** Containers falling into the pod shared pool | ||
| have CPU CFS quotas enabled (`ResourceIsolationPod`), ensuring they do not | ||
| consume more than the leftover pod budget. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
IIRC ResourceIsolation is an internal concept. If I'm right, let's not surface the naming to users. It may beneficial to describe the concept (e.g. "resource isolation is at XYZ level") but using the specific term in code hints at something we should not expose.
| This incompatibility occurs because the newer schema introduces new | ||
| top-level fields to store pod-level allocations, which older Kubelet | ||
| versions cannot parse. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
IIRC the problem for us was the checksum not matching because was computed including fields an older kubelet would ignore. If my memory serves, this is an operational/internal detail which makes little sense for users: is not actionable.
So I'd avoid mention it.
7 participants
Description
KEP-5526: Pod Level Resource Managers blog.
Issue
kubernetes/enhancements#5526