Support in-place Pod vertical scaling in VPA

[noBlubb]

Hey everyone,

as I gather the VPA currently cannot update pods without recreating them:

Once restart free ("in-place") update of pod requests is available
from README

and neither can the GKE vertical scaler:

Due to Kubernetes limitations, the only way to modify the resource requests of a running Pod is to recreate the Pod
from https://cloud.google.com/kubernetes-engine/docs/concepts/verticalpodautoscaler#vertical_pod_autoscaling_in_auto_mode

Unfortunately, I was unable to learn the specific limitation from this (other than the mere absence of any such feature?) nor timeline for this to appear in VPA or how to contribute on this if possible. Could you please outline what is missing in VPA for this to be implemented?

Best regards,
Raffael

[morganchristiansson]

Would be nice with more details on the status feature. I would guess it's limitation in Kubernetes or from a lower level like containerd or kernel?

[bskiba]

At this moment this is a Kubernetes limitation (kernel and container runtime already supports resizing containers). There is work needed in scheduler, kubelet, core API so a pretty cross-cutting problem. Also a lot of systems assumed pod sized are immutable for a long time so there is need to untangle those as well.

There is ongoing work in Kubernetes to provide in-place pod resizes (Example: kubernetes/enhancements#1883). Once that work completes VPA will be able to take advantage of that.

[k8s-triage-robot]

Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale.
Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

Send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.
/lifecycle stale

[k8s-triage-robot]

The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough active contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs.

This bot triages issues and PRs according to the following rules:

• After 90d of inactivity, lifecycle/stale is applied
• After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/stale was applied, lifecycle/rotten is applied
• After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/rotten was applied, the issue is closed

You can:

• Mark this issue or PR as fresh with /remove-lifecycle rotten
• Close this issue or PR with /close
• Offer to help out with Issue Triage

Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.

/lifecycle rotten

[Jeffwan]

/remove-lifecycle rotten

[jmo-qap]

kubernetes/kubernetes#102884

[k8s-triage-robot]

The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs.

This bot triages issues and PRs according to the following rules:

• After 90d of inactivity, lifecycle/stale is applied
• After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/stale was applied, lifecycle/rotten is applied
• After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/rotten was applied, the issue is closed

You can:

• Mark this issue or PR as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale
• Mark this issue or PR as rotten with /lifecycle rotten
• Close this issue or PR with /close
• Offer to help out with Issue Triage

Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.

/lifecycle stale

[jbartosik]

/remove-lifecycle rotten

[jbartosik]

/remove-lifecycle stale

[k8s-triage-robot]

The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs.

This bot triages issues and PRs according to the following rules:

• After 90d of inactivity, lifecycle/stale is applied
• After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/stale was applied, lifecycle/rotten is applied
• After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/rotten was applied, the issue is closed

You can:

• Mark this issue or PR as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale
• Mark this issue or PR as rotten with /lifecycle rotten
• Close this issue or PR with /close
• Offer to help out with Issue Triage

Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.

/lifecycle stale

[jbartosik]

/remove-lifecycle stale

[k8s-triage-robot]

The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs.

This bot triages issues and PRs according to the following rules:

• After 90d of inactivity, lifecycle/stale is applied
• After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/stale was applied, lifecycle/rotten is applied
• After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/rotten was applied, the issue is closed

You can:

• Mark this issue or PR as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale
• Mark this issue or PR as rotten with /lifecycle rotten
• Close this issue or PR with /close
• Offer to help out with Issue Triage

Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.

/lifecycle stale

[jbartosik]

/remove-lifecycle stale

Support for in-place updates didn't make it into K8s 1.25 but it aiming for 1.26.

[k8s-triage-robot]

The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs.

This bot triages issues and PRs according to the following rules:

• After 90d of inactivity, lifecycle/stale is applied
• After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/stale was applied, lifecycle/rotten is applied
• After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/rotten was applied, the issue is closed

You can:

• Mark this issue or PR as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale
• Mark this issue or PR as rotten with /lifecycle rotten
• Close this issue or PR with /close
• Offer to help out with Issue Triage

Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.

/lifecycle stale

[voelzmo]

/remove-lifecycle stale
Feature didn't make it in 1.26, but now targeted for 1.27 ;)

[frivoire]

This issue seems to be a duplicate of: #5046
Shouldn't we close one of those 2 issues ?

[voelzmo]

Adding this as context, so we don't forget about this when implementing the feature:
If we don't want to change existing behavior with injected sidecars, we need to find a way to achieve a similar thing like the admission-controller currently does to ignore injected sidecars when using in-place updates.

[jbartosik]

There are some open issues related to the feature: https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+%5BFG%3AInPlacePodVerticalScaling%5D

Most relevant seem:

• [FG:InPlacePodVerticalScaling] If pod resize request exceeds node allocatable, fail it in admission handler kubernetes#114203 - until this is resolved VPA needs to decide an in-place update will not succeed after some time (maybe we need to do that even after this is resolved - we're not evicting other pods to make space for the one we want to scale up)
• [FG:InPlacePodVerticalScaling] Pod Resize - long delay in updating apiPodStatus.Resources kubernetes#112264 - we can't give up on in place updates too quickly, even successful ones take at least minute or so in my experience
• [FG:InPlacePodVerticalScaling] Add /resize subresource to request pod resource resizing kubernetes#109553 - with this we can patch only subresource

[SergeyKanzhelev]

I don't think the VPA should look at the ResizePolicy field in PodSpec.containers at all.

API currently is limited and not supporting the notion of "apply changes if possible without restart and not apply otherwise". Which may impact PDB. I don't know how autoscaler deals with PDB today, but if there will be higher frequency autoscaling with InPlace update hoping for non disruptive change, this will not work. In other words, we either need a new API to resize ONLY without the restart or treat a resize as a disruption affecting PDB.

[voelzmo]

@SergeyKanzhelev thanks for joining the discussion!

I don't know how [vertical pod] autoscaler deals with PDB today

Today, VPA uses the eviction API, which respects PDB.

we either need a new API to resize ONLY without the restart or treat a resize as a disruption affecting PDB.

I'm not sure which component the "we" part in this sentence is, but in general, I tend to agree with the need for an API that respects PDB. If kubelet needs to restart the Pod for applying a resource change, this should count towards PDB. However, I think this shouldn't be a concern that VPA has to deal with. Similarly to eviction, VPA should just be using an API that respects PDB if we consider this relevant for the restart case as well.

Regarding my statement from above

I don't think the VPA should look at the ResizePolicy field in PodSpec.containers at all.

This is no longer correct, as @jbartosik opted for a more informed approach in the enhancement proposal. Currently, VPA implements some constraints to ensure resource updates don't happen too frequently (for example, by requiring a mimimum absolute/relative change for Pods which have been running for shorter than 12 hours). The proposal contains the idea to change these constraints if a Container has ResizePolicy: NotRequired.

[k8s-triage-robot]

The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all issues.

This bot triages un-triaged issues according to the following rules:

• After 90d of inactivity, lifecycle/stale is applied
• After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/stale was applied, lifecycle/rotten is applied
• After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/rotten was applied, the issue is closed

You can:

• Mark this issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale
• Close this issue with /close
• Offer to help out with Issue Triage

Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.

/lifecycle stale

[jbartosik]

/remove-lifecycle stale
/lifecycle frozen

[nikimanoledaki]

Hi folks, could someone share a summary of what is blocking this feature please? +1 that this would be really useful to reduce workload evictions. Thank you!

[voelzmo]

I think the summary is: the kubernetes feature for in-place resource updates is in alpha stage and there are still many things to be done before it will be promoted to beta status. See kubernetes/enhancements#4704 for a summary and the ongoing discussion.
As for beta, many things will fundamentally change e.g. what the API for this feature is (they're e.g. talking about an introduction of a /resize subresource), I don't think we can start working on this from the VPA side before the feature reaches beta state in k/k.

[adrianmoisey]

Also note that a work-in-progress PR does exist: #6652

[sftim]

Help with the implementation (both for Pod-level resizing, and automatically managing that size) is very welcome.

[adrianmoisey]

Help with the implementation (both for Pod-level resizing, and automatically managing that size) is very welcome.

If someone did want to help, where can they go to get involved?