-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.2k
Update AEP-8026: Allow per-VPA component configuration parameters #8505
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
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Omer Aplatony <[email protected]>
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: omerap12 The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
vertical-pod-autoscaler/enhancements/8026-per-vpa-component-configuration/README.md
Show resolved
Hide resolved
vertical-pod-autoscaler/enhancements/8026-per-vpa-component-configuration/README.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Signed-off-by: Omer Aplatony <[email protected]>
/label tide/merge-method-squash |
Signed-off-by: Omer Aplatony <[email protected]>
/retitle Update AEP-8026: Allow per-VPA component configuration parameters |
This LGTM, but I believe it needs api-review If you agree, can you add the label? |
Thanks for the title fix :) |
What type of PR is this?
/kind documentation
What this PR does / why we need it:
Addressing #8012 (comment)
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #
Special notes for your reviewer:
As I can see we can have OOM configuration at both VPA-level (using containerPolicy with "*") and container-level. While both approaches work technically, I would appreciate your thoughts on which approach is more appropriate. Currently, the proposal keeps it at container-level for consistency with other container policies, but I'm open to discussion.
Also note that
oomBumpUp
will be replacing the existing global configuration when specified in a VPA object - we can achieve the same capabilities with only one config value.Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?
Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.: