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.

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

gpu-cluster: Remove step to create gpu-operator ns #173

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

surajssd
Copy link

@surajssd surajssd commented Mar 8, 2025

The daemonset is deployed in the kube-system namespace and not in the gpu-operator namespace. The step to create the gpu-operator namespace is not required.

surajssd added 2 commits March 8, 2025 14:03
- Remove trailing whitespaces.
- Remove unused links.

Signed-off-by: Suraj Deshmukh <[email protected]>
The daemonset is deployed in the `kube-system` namespace and not in the
`gpu-operator` namespace. The step to create the `gpu-operator` namespace is not
required.

Signed-off-by: Suraj Deshmukh <[email protected]>
Copy link
Contributor

@surajssd : Thanks for your contribution! The author(s) and reviewer(s) have been notified to review your proposed change.

Copy link

Learn Build status updates of commit df1330f:

✅ Validation status: passed

File Status Preview URL Details
articles/aks/gpu-cluster.md ✅Succeeded

For more details, please refer to the build report.

For any questions, please:

@JoeyC-Dev
Copy link
Contributor

JoeyC-Dev commented Mar 10, 2025

Conflict with: #138

I believe this still needs to be installed in a separated namespace as this is 3rd-party plugin. Detailed counterargument is in PR 138.

@Court72
Copy link
Contributor

Court72 commented Mar 10, 2025

@schaffererin

Can you review the proposed changes?

Important: When the changes are ready for publication, adding a #sign-off comment is the best way to signal that the PR is ready for the review team to merge.

#label:"aq-pr-triaged"
@MicrosoftDocs/public-repo-pr-review-team

@surajssd
Copy link
Author

@Court72 it seems like if the PR #138 is merged then we can close this PR without merging.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants