You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
It seems to be random the way I see it, which in many cases leads to underutilized nodes, which in turn leads to consolidation happening too often.
I wonder if there is a way to tell the scheduler to place pods on nodes with highest utilization first?
Pretty much I want to increase a density and avoid pod eviction as much as possible. I know there is "do-not-disrupt" pod annotation, but it doesn't really address the issue here. Instead - it leads to too many nodes with fewer workloads on it.
May be pod affinity policy is the way to accomplish what I'm after. Not quite sure yet.
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
It seems to be random the way I see it, which in many cases leads to underutilized nodes, which in turn leads to consolidation happening too often.
I wonder if there is a way to tell the scheduler to place pods on nodes with highest utilization first?
Pretty much I want to increase a density and avoid pod eviction as much as possible. I know there is "do-not-disrupt" pod annotation, but it doesn't really address the issue here. Instead - it leads to too many nodes with fewer workloads on it.
May be pod affinity policy is the way to accomplish what I'm after. Not quite sure yet.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions