Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Add the link of supposed example in topology-spread-constraints.md #43702

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jan 22, 2024
Merged

Add the link of supposed example in topology-spread-constraints.md #43702

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
9151b93
Add the link of supposed example in topology-spread-constraints.md
vaibhav2107 Oct 26, 2023
bbf3000
Updated topology spread constraints.md
vaibhav2107 Nov 24, 2023
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
4 changes: 2 additions & 2 deletions content/en/docs/concepts/scheduling-eviction/topology-spread-constraints.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -480,8 +480,8 @@ There are some implicit conventions worth noting here:
- The scheduler bypasses any nodes that don't have any `topologySpreadConstraints[*].topologyKey`
present. This implies that:

1. any Pods located on those bypassed nodes do not impact `maxSkew` calculation - in the
above example, suppose the node `node1` does not have a label "zone", then the 2 Pods will
1. any Pods located on those bypassed nodes do not impact `maxSkew` calculation - [in the
above example](#example-conflicting-topologyspreadconstraints), suppose the node `node1` does not have a label "zone", then the 2 Pods will
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
1. any Pods located on those bypassed nodes do not impact `maxSkew` calculation - [in the
above example](#example-conflicting-topologyspreadconstraints), suppose the node `node1` does not have a label "zone", then the 2 Pods will
1. any Pods located on those bypassed nodes do not impact `maxSkew` calculation - in the
above [example](#example-conflicting-topologyspreadconstraints), suppose the node `node1` does not have a label "zone", then the 2 Pods will

even better. The link is to an example, not to an in the above example.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@sftim Thanks for the suggestion

be disregarded, hence the incoming Pod will be scheduled into zone `A`.
2. the incoming Pod has no chances to be scheduled onto this kind of nodes -
in the above example, suppose a node `node5` has the **mistyped** label `zone-typo: zoneC`
Expand Down