3 ms·
That's super fiddly though: you will be leaning on (anti) affinity and counts to retain the 1:1 relationship between hosts and pods. I would argue that daemonse
by clhodapp 7y ago
That's super fiddly though: you will be leaning on (anti) affinity and counts to retain the 1:1 relationship between hosts and pods. I would argue that daemonsets aren't for any specific workload, they're more about how you want scheduling to happen (1 per node, on some subset of your nodes).
- manigandham 7y agoThis is where K8S becomes messy because of its rapid development history. Applications should just be a `Deployment` manifest with the type of distribution being a child setting (X replicas with affinity or 1-per-host). There's no reason to have competing ReplicaSets and DaemonSets just for this detail.
- kissgyorgy 7y agoI disagree on this one, DaemonSets are for really a different use-case. There is no replicas field you can set, and strictly 1 Pod will run on 1 node. A Deployment is more flexible, because you can run even more Pods in different cities if necessary. What if there are more/less nodes are in different cities or different specs, which could and should run more Pods? You can't fine-tune DaemonSets for those cases, it really is for daemons.
- manigandham 7y agoIt's not about use-case, it's that "X number of replicas with affinity" OR "1-per-node" should just be a setting within a Deployment. No need to use a completely separate DaemonSet definition just to run 1-per-node.