Update api to v1alpha2 about loadbalancer-controller HOT 12 CLOSED

v1alpha2 api spec

spec:
  nodes:
    names:
    - kube-master-1
    - kube-master-2
    - kube-master-3
    replica: 3
    taintEffect: PreferNoSchedule
  providers:
    ipvsdr:
      scheduler: rr
      vip: 192.168.18.60
  proxy:
    type: nginx
    config:
      proxy-read-timeout: "600"
      proxy-send-timeout: "600"
      use-proxy-protocol: "false"
    resources:
      limits:
        cpu: "1"
        memory: 1000Mi
      requests:
        cpu: 300m
        memory: 256Mi

from loadbalancer-controller.

@kdada @qiuxiaolian @ddysher @xiaoq17 @Superxi911 PTAL

from loadbalancer-controller.

@kdada add task labels and track in project APP

from loadbalancer-controller.

@zoumo Are we still using Deployment?

from loadbalancer-controller.

Does spec.nodes.replica equal to len(spec.nodes.names)?

from loadbalancer-controller.

@ddysher
I think we should take precise control of replicas of loadbalancer.

Consider the following case:

1. HPA for loadbalancer
2. user only specify the replicas, let controller choose nodes from a candidate pool

Deployment is easier to be scaled to a precise replica number.

from loadbalancer-controller.

@kdada
spec.nodes.replica doesn't take effect now

from loadbalancer-controller.

@zoumo can't we dynamically taint / un-taint nodes to control replica and which node to run pods?

There are benefits of daemonset that can't be been from deployment, like guaranteed scheduling, easier setting of critical addon, started before other pods, etc. LB is the exact use case for daemonset - label/taint the nodes, then run daemonset.

from loadbalancer-controller.

My setback from using daemonset is due to internal services; if that's no longer supported, i don't see compelling reasons for using deployment now. WDYT?

from loadbalancer-controller.

It seems that LB is the exact use case for daemonset, but there are still some issues need to discuss for the future version.

Unfortunately, there too much work for replacing Deployment with Daemonset to catch up with this release cycle(11.30)

I will consider it in next release.

from loadbalancer-controller.

you mean, to not miss the release cycle? :)

Unfortunately, there too much work for replacing Daemonset with Deployment to miss the release cycle(11.30)

LGTM if it's under ur radar.

from loadbalancer-controller.

Aha, that is a grammar mistake.

囧 (ノへ￣、)捂脸

I mean, couldn't catch up with this release time.

from loadbalancer-controller.