clarification for ResourceQuota concept #42685

pegasas · 2023-08-23T02:41:17Z

count/* — it's precieved as a wildcard mask as if it contains all the resources such as a pods, services, persistentvolumeclaims. But this doesn’t not work that way. Consider rewording or adding some information about the meaning, maybe as a warning block or as a note block.

2. quota for the total number of certain resources and generic object count quota means the same, so there could be two syntaxes for the same object, for example count/pods and pods. I found the only difference — you cannot set any quota in count/-less syntax except what mentioned in the table. The problem is the wording — it looks like you can specify something different using different syntaxes, but in fact it's the same things with some limitations for count/-less syntax. Consider rewording to highlight that this is just another syntax for the same resources (if I'm not mistaken).

It seems owner @whitebear009 has solved #1 by whitebeard10#2.
I've mades some minor change on #1

For #2, my suggestion is we should add a link to below paragraph.
Then count/pod and pod would be clear.
In my opinion, we should use pods in resource quota yaml, and counts/pods for directly use kubectl.

pegasas · 2023-08-23T02:41:28Z

try to resolve #42605

netlify · 2023-08-23T02:54:35Z

✅ Pull request preview available for checking

Built without sensitive environment variables

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	`efed6fd`
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/kubernetes-io-main-staging/deploys/660ca1d71235490008ac3906
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-42685--kubernetes-io-main-staging.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

content/en/docs/concepts/policy/resource-quotas.md

Co-authored-by: Tim Bannister <tim@scalefactory.com>

sftim · 2023-08-24T10:42:13Z

content/en/docs/concepts/policy/resource-quotas.md

-You can set quota for the total number of certain resources of all standard,
-namespaced resource types using the following syntax:
+You can set quota for **the total number of one particular resource**
+for certain resources of all standard, namespaced resource types using the following syntax:


Is this all object kinds or only some? The new wording seems contradictory.

Indeed it brings more confusion. I switch to another expression to see if it is better.

tengqm · 2023-09-16T13:18:44Z

content/en/docs/concepts/policy/resource-quotas.md

-You can set quota for the total number of certain resources of all standard,
-namespaced resource types using the following syntax:
+You can set quota for **the total number of one particular resource** of all standard, namespaced resource types 
+using the following syntax:


My experiments showed that the <resource> in count/<resource> can be anything.
It can be something that doesn't exist at all.

So ... this doen't have to be a "standard" resource type, right?

Although the API accepts any resource name in that field, this could mean:

you can set any ResourceQuota, even for an API the cluster doesn't yet have

if the cluster already has that resource kind, you cannot add a new resource that would exceed the quota

if the cluster gains that resource kind, the quota starts to be enforced

you can set any ResourceQuota, even for an API the cluster doesn't yet have

if the cluster already has that resource kind, you cannot add a new resource that would exceed the quota

if the cluster gains that resource kind, the quota starts to be enforced

however, all of the above only includes built-in APIs and CustomResourceDefinitions. An APIService backed by an aggregated API server can fail to enforce a ResourceQuota without being seen as defective.

you can set any ResourceQuota, even for an API the cluster doesn't yet have

however, there is an internal list of API kinds where enforcement happens

if you set a ResourceQuota for an different resource kind, the ResourceQuota is not enforced, and the lack of enforcement is silent

Let's be clear on which of those ~~two~~ three cases applies.

I think the 1st case is the correct answer, but has to double confirm this.

It's case 2 (very well considered). Though the "default" aggregated apiserver (APIService) enforces quota.

'standard' is indeed ambiguous, better to clearly list out: built-in API and CRD

kbhawkey · 2023-12-20T13:27:26Z

👋 @pegasas .
Checking if you are actively working on your pull request, or if you can close it?
Thanks

pegasas · 2023-12-20T16:29:40Z

👋 @pegasas . Checking if you are actively working on your pull request, or if you can close it? Thanks

for my view, this has resolved all comments and pending merging.

kbhawkey · 2023-12-21T01:19:10Z

I suggest that you get a technical review of the changes.

sftim · 2024-01-02T17:44:14Z

@kubernetes/sig-api-machinery-misc can you either review this, or let us know which SIG should do the technical review?

divya-mohan0209 · 2024-01-24T03:40:03Z

Ping @kubernetes/sig-api-machinery-pr-reviews : PTAL and advise if y'all are the right folx to be reviewing the PR?

divya-mohan0209 · 2024-04-01T02:55:50Z

@kubernetes/sig-api-machinery-leads : Could you please assign someone to look at this? It has been pending in our queue for a very long time & we'd appreciate some input.

divya-mohan0209 · 2024-04-01T03:00:07Z

Slack channel message sent on #sig-api-machinery

fedebongio · 2024-04-01T03:03:05Z

@yliaog from the pool of your generosity, would you mind taking a look to this one?

yliaog · 2024-04-01T03:15:51Z

/assign @yliaog

deads2k · 2024-04-01T12:44:05Z

content/en/docs/concepts/policy/resource-quotas.md

@@ -168,13 +168,14 @@ Here is an example set of resources users may want to put under object count quo
 The same syntax can be used for custom resources.
 For example, to create a quota on a `widgets` custom resource in the `example.com` API group, use `count/widgets.example.com`.

-When using `count/*` resource quota, an object is charged against the quota if it exists in server storage.
+When using such a resource quota (only available for some object kinds), an object is charged


perhaps indicating that only some APIServices might be excluded. It's nearly all resources.

@pegasas : Whenever you have some cycles, would you be okay making this change?

Sure. Correct this one to "nearly for all resources".

yliaog · 2024-04-01T14:43:16Z

content/en/docs/concepts/policy/resource-quotas.md

-You can set quota for the total number of certain resources of all standard,
-namespaced resource types using the following syntax:
+You can set quota for **the total number of one particular resource** of all standard, namespaced resource types 
+using the following syntax:


'standard' is indeed ambiguous, better to clearly list out: built-in API and CRD

yliaog · 2024-04-01T14:50:11Z

content/en/docs/concepts/policy/resource-quotas.md

@@ -168,13 +168,14 @@ Here is an example set of resources users may want to put under object count quo
 The same syntax can be used for custom resources.
 For example, to create a quota on a `widgets` custom resource in the `example.com` API group, use `count/widgets.example.com`.

-When using `count/*` resource quota, an object is charged against the quota if it exists in server storage.
+When using such a resource quota (nearly for all object kinds), an object is charged
+against the quota if the control plane has a stored copy.


"if the control plane has a stored copy." is not very clear what this means, may be something like: "if the object kind exists (is defined) in the control plane"

yliaog · 2024-04-02T15:46:53Z

/lgtm

k8s-ci-robot · 2024-04-02T15:46:59Z

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: cd70079092371991feccb1a0177c3135f3291920

sftim

I kind of recommend a tweak, because the changes so far don't cover https://github.com/kubernetes/website/pull/42685/files#r1546282734

content/en/docs/concepts/policy/resource-quotas.md

Co-authored-by: Tim Bannister <tim@scalefactory.com>

pegasas · 2024-04-03T00:25:32Z

I kind of recommend a tweak, because the changes so far don't cover https://github.com/kubernetes/website/pull/42685/files#r1546282734

sure.
i commit these changes.

sftim

/lgtm

k8s-ci-robot · 2024-04-03T11:44:41Z

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: afd1a8067e2d6ad7873a0d657fa09fbc3dea364a

reylejano · 2024-04-22T20:38:26Z

Thank you for addressing comments and thank you all for reviews
/approve

k8s-ci-robot · 2024-04-22T20:38:42Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: reylejano

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

~~content/en/OWNERS~~ [reylejano]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

clarification for ResourceQuota concept

e4d1341

k8s-ci-robot added the cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. label Aug 23, 2023

k8s-ci-robot added the size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files. label Aug 23, 2023

k8s-ci-robot requested a review from derekwaynecarr August 23, 2023 02:42

k8s-ci-robot added the language/en Issues or PRs related to English language label Aug 23, 2023

k8s-ci-robot requested a review from mengjiao-liu August 23, 2023 02:42

k8s-ci-robot added the sig/docs Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Docs. label Aug 23, 2023

pegasas mentioned this pull request Aug 23, 2023

REQUEST: New membership for @pegasas kubernetes/org#4405

Closed

9 tasks

sftim reviewed Aug 23, 2023

View reviewed changes

content/en/docs/concepts/policy/resource-quotas.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

content/en/docs/concepts/policy/resource-quotas.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

pegasas and others added 2 commits August 23, 2023 15:00

Update content/en/docs/concepts/policy/resource-quotas.md

8bd2ee5

Co-authored-by: Tim Bannister <tim@scalefactory.com>

Update content/en/docs/concepts/policy/resource-quotas.md

6a66166

Co-authored-by: Tim Bannister <tim@scalefactory.com>

pegasas force-pushed the quota branch from e1424b1 to 6a66166 Compare August 24, 2023 01:42

k8s-ci-robot added size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Aug 24, 2023

sftim reviewed Aug 25, 2023

View reviewed changes

fix confusing expression

a25ed42

tengqm reviewed Sep 16, 2023

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot added the sig/api-machinery Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG API Machinery. label Jan 2, 2024

k8s-ci-robot assigned yliaog Apr 1, 2024

deads2k reviewed Apr 1, 2024

View reviewed changes

fix description

605f158

yliaog reviewed Apr 1, 2024

View reviewed changes

pegasas added 2 commits April 2, 2024 23:39

specify built-in API and CRD

5e7dee8

Update resource-quotas.md

9e4ecf0

k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Apr 2, 2024

sftim reviewed Apr 2, 2024

View reviewed changes

content/en/docs/concepts/policy/resource-quotas.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

content/en/docs/concepts/policy/resource-quotas.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Update content/en/docs/concepts/policy/resource-quotas.md

d7cdaf6

Co-authored-by: Tim Bannister <tim@scalefactory.com>

k8s-ci-robot removed the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Apr 3, 2024

k8s-ci-robot requested a review from yliaog April 3, 2024 00:24

Update content/en/docs/concepts/policy/resource-quotas.md

efed6fd

Co-authored-by: Tim Bannister <tim@scalefactory.com>

sftim reviewed Apr 3, 2024

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot assigned sftim Apr 3, 2024

k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Apr 3, 2024

k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Apr 22, 2024

k8s-ci-robot merged commit 34ac45c into kubernetes:main Apr 22, 2024
6 checks passed

pegasas deleted the quota branch April 22, 2024 20:57

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

clarification for ResourceQuota concept #42685

clarification for ResourceQuota concept #42685

pegasas commented Aug 23, 2023 •

edited

Loading

pegasas commented Aug 23, 2023

netlify bot commented Aug 23, 2023 •

edited

Loading

sftim Aug 24, 2023

pegasas Aug 25, 2023

tengqm Sep 16, 2023

tengqm Oct 9, 2023

sftim Oct 9, 2023 •

edited

Loading

tengqm Oct 9, 2023

deads2k Apr 1, 2024

yliaog Apr 1, 2024

kbhawkey commented Dec 20, 2023

pegasas commented Dec 20, 2023

kbhawkey commented Dec 21, 2023

sftim commented Jan 2, 2024

divya-mohan0209 commented Jan 24, 2024

divya-mohan0209 commented Apr 1, 2024

divya-mohan0209 commented Apr 1, 2024

fedebongio commented Apr 1, 2024

yliaog commented Apr 1, 2024

deads2k Apr 1, 2024

divya-mohan0209 Apr 1, 2024

pegasas Apr 1, 2024

yliaog Apr 1, 2024

yliaog Apr 1, 2024

yliaog commented Apr 2, 2024

k8s-ci-robot commented Apr 2, 2024

sftim left a comment

pegasas commented Apr 3, 2024

sftim left a comment

k8s-ci-robot commented Apr 3, 2024

reylejano commented Apr 22, 2024

k8s-ci-robot commented Apr 22, 2024

clarification for ResourceQuota concept #42685

clarification for ResourceQuota concept #42685

Conversation

pegasas commented Aug 23, 2023 • edited Loading

pegasas commented Aug 23, 2023

netlify bot commented Aug 23, 2023 • edited Loading

✅ Pull request preview available for checking

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

sftim Oct 9, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

kbhawkey commented Dec 20, 2023

pegasas commented Dec 20, 2023

kbhawkey commented Dec 21, 2023

sftim commented Jan 2, 2024

divya-mohan0209 commented Jan 24, 2024

divya-mohan0209 commented Apr 1, 2024

divya-mohan0209 commented Apr 1, 2024

fedebongio commented Apr 1, 2024

yliaog commented Apr 1, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

yliaog commented Apr 2, 2024

k8s-ci-robot commented Apr 2, 2024

sftim left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

pegasas commented Apr 3, 2024

sftim left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

k8s-ci-robot commented Apr 3, 2024

reylejano commented Apr 22, 2024

k8s-ci-robot commented Apr 22, 2024

pegasas commented Aug 23, 2023 •

edited

Loading

netlify bot commented Aug 23, 2023 •

edited

Loading

sftim Oct 9, 2023 •

edited

Loading