Correct meaning of scheduling affinity benefits (#18764)
Commit f5bfa04aa4 incorrectly reworded the
benefits of using affinity / anti-affinity for Pod scheduling.
Revise this with new wording.
This commit is contained in:
@@ -111,9 +111,10 @@ For example, `example.com.node-restriction.kubernetes.io/fips=true` or `example.
|
|||||||
`nodeSelector` provides a very simple way to constrain pods to nodes with particular labels. The affinity/anti-affinity
|
`nodeSelector` provides a very simple way to constrain pods to nodes with particular labels. The affinity/anti-affinity
|
||||||
feature, greatly expands the types of constraints you can express. The key enhancements are
|
feature, greatly expands the types of constraints you can express. The key enhancements are
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
1. the language is more expressive (not just "AND or exact match")
|
1. The affinity/anti-affinity language is more expressive. The language offers more matching rules
|
||||||
|
besides exact matches created with a logical AND operation;
|
||||||
2. you can indicate that the rule is "soft"/"preference" rather than a hard requirement, so if the scheduler
|
2. you can indicate that the rule is "soft"/"preference" rather than a hard requirement, so if the scheduler
|
||||||
can't satisfy it, the pod will still be scheduled
|
can't satisfy it, the pod will still be scheduled;
|
||||||
3. you can constrain against labels on other pods running on the node (or other topological domain),
|
3. you can constrain against labels on other pods running on the node (or other topological domain),
|
||||||
rather than against labels on the node itself, which allows rules about which pods can and cannot be co-located
|
rather than against labels on the node itself, which allows rules about which pods can and cannot be co-located
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|||||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user