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

Pod request values can have mB unit when set as percentage of limit #8391

Closed
spadgett opened this issue Apr 6, 2016 · 5 comments
Closed

Comments

@spadgett
Copy link
Member

spadgett commented Apr 6, 2016

See memory usage below. Values like this also appear in the pod template for memory request. It looks like we're using mB to avoid losing precision when calculating request as a percentage of limit.

image

/cc @sspeiche @sosiouxme @jwforres @derekwaynecarr

@spadgett
Copy link
Member Author

spadgett commented Apr 7, 2016

openshift_web_console

openshift_web_console

@derekwaynecarr
Copy link
Member

A few options:

  1. upstream could fail validation for any fractional request of memory
  2. cluster overcommit admission controller can round up fractional values

I am pursuing 2 since I think 1 may impact backwards compatibility.

@derekwaynecarr
Copy link
Member

Another thing:

the current code allows for cpu precision below a millicore. for example, 0.5m or 100.5m, we should also round those up.

@jwforres
Copy link
Member

jwforres commented Apr 7, 2016

so derek's fix will get rid of the fact that there are mB but we will still
end up with B as the unit so...
@spadgett I discussed briefly with @smarterclayton and I do think we want
to humanize the values when we display them like you did with image size,
one decimal place of precision

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Derek Carr [email protected] wrote:

A few options:

  1. upstream could fail validation for any fractional request of memory
  2. cluster overcommit admission controller can round up fractional values

I am pursuing 2 since I think 1 may impact backwards compatibility.


You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#8391 (comment)

@derekwaynecarr
Copy link
Member

@danmcp can this be labeled p1 since we are actually storing invalid data (i.e. a fractional byte, and a fractional millicore)

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

No branches or pull requests

4 participants