Open fwiesel opened 1 year ago
Thank you for opening this issue, we will be discussing this more in depth on the biweekly meeting.
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all issues.
This bot triages un-triaged issues according to the following rules:
lifecycle/stale
is appliedlifecycle/stale
was applied, lifecycle/rotten
is appliedlifecycle/rotten
was applied, the issue is closedYou can:
/remove-lifecycle stale
/close
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.
/lifecycle stale
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough active contributors to adequately respond to all issues.
This bot triages un-triaged issues according to the following rules:
lifecycle/stale
is appliedlifecycle/stale
was applied, lifecycle/rotten
is appliedlifecycle/rotten
was applied, the issue is closedYou can:
/remove-lifecycle rotten
/close
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.
/lifecycle rotten
/remove-lifecycle rotten /triage accepted
Apologies this got forgotten about. We are rehashing this discussion and will try to come to a decision soon.
/remove-lifecycle rotten /triage accepted
Apologies this got forgotten about. We are rehashing this discussion and will try to come to a decision soon.
I would like to confirm if you have come to a decision for this issue.
What happened:
If you have a node with a pod which has limits unset (ergo is not limited) in some containers, the
kubectl describe node <node-name>
command will simply sum the limits of the containers and display them showing a potentially confusing summary, by counting unset values as zero.That is incorrect / confusing in two ways
What you expected to happen:
I would expect that if a container in pod does not have a limit set on a resource, that the pod in total is also not shown as limited in the usage of the resource, since the resource-usage of the pod as a whole is also not limited.
How to reproduce it (as minimally and precisely as possible):
Given the spec:
kubectl get pod test-describe-node -o=jsonpath='{.spec.nodeName}' | xargs kubectl describe node | grep -A1 -E 'Namespace|test-describe-node'
Shows (removed namespace to make it shorter)
To stay backward compatible, I would expect something this
But it raises the question, if treating unset and
0
the same is warranted also in the UI, and I was seeing somewhere in the code-
used as denoting unset.Anything else we need to know?:
Environment:
on Baremetal