Open xamebax opened 6 months ago
Just an update that I did start working on this and should hopefully have a draft by the end of the week.
It's relevant to help the reader to identify broken workload and we have to differentiate here. You have sprawls, so workload that got "lost" and no one takes care about, and you have idle workload but that "misbehaves".
I think for both there is a fairly easy approach: compare the network traffic vs. the resource consumption ->
There are also other use cases where for example you either have old programming languages false configuration and those demand to much resources.
@mkorbi thanks for extra context. So there are two repair paths:
restartPolicy
?I would argue choices around programming language / outdated software is outside of the scope of this project in its first run, since if I remember correctly we agreed to not cross the Pod barrier.
Does this make sense?
I wrote a high-level introduction to this in the working document. It's difficult for me to gauge if the level of detail is ok. The next step will be describing examples.
The challenge for me here is that it's quite difficult to be specific about carbon cost since workloads can be very different, so I am hoping to provide a few high-level examples.
This is very, very much a work in progress so all feedback is more than welcome, good or bad. π
[...] Does this make sense?
&
[...] This is very, very much a work in progress so all feedback is more than welcome, good or bad. π
cc @mkorbi @saiyam1814
I will have a look
Founder, Kubesimplify https://saiyampathak.com/youtube https://www.linkedin.com/in/saiyampathak/ https://twitter.com/saiyampathak
On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 at 4:58β―PM, Leonard Vincent Simon Pahlke < @.***> wrote:
[...] Does this make sense?
&
[...] This is very, very much a work in progress so all feedback is more than welcome, good or bad. π
cc @mkorbi https://github.com/mkorbi @saiyam1814 https://github.com/saiyam1814
β Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/cncf/tag-env-sustainability/issues/365#issuecomment-2171449464, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB6PRIVRYJG6T63ZGVKN45TZHVZFTAVCNFSM6AAAAABFVBZKUGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCNZRGQ2DSNBWGQ . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>
(ticket is part of sustainable k8s practices project work)
Description
What is the carbon cost of leaving broken workloads to run on Kubernetes? What is the untapped potential of making sure workloads repair themselves better, or that broken workloads aren't allowed to run for a long time? Is there a good "Kubernetes hygiene" around repairing workloads that can lead to lowering a cluster's carbon cost?
Outcome
A recommendation in our working document that helps the reader make a choice on how to repair their workloads, with an effort estimation (small, medium, large). Optional extra reading material with extra context if the reader's interested.
To-Do
Comments
@mkorbi I'd love your input on this issue description, do you feel this captures the fullness of what we talked about?
(cc @JacobValdemar)