This blog post will provide you with hands-on experience with Kubernetes affinity and anti-affinity. We will test node affinity as well as POD affinity for „soft“ and „hard“ rules.

Introduction

Node affinity and anti-affinity are similar to node selectors and taints, respectively:

Alike node selectors, node affinity rules ask the Kubernetes scheduler to spin up the PODs on nodes with certain labels defined. The most important difference between node selectors and node affinity is that the latter support logical operators like AND and OR.
Node anti-affinity will try to avoid nodes with certain labels, which is similar to node taints that repel PODs without tolerations from running on that node.

POD affinity and anti-affinity allow for following new functionalities:

The Kubernetes scheduler will try to run PODs with POD affinity rules on nodes or failure domains that are already hosting PODs with certain labels.
This makes sense, if certain PODs intensively communicate with other PODs, and therefore should be located close to each other.
The scheduler will try to avoid running PODs with POD anti-affinity rules on nodes or failure domains that are already hosting PODs with certain labels.
Consider running a cluster application in PODs: in this case, it makes sense to keep PODs of the same cluster on different failure domains: e.g. if a cloud region becomes unavailable, with anti-affinity you can make sure that some of the PODs of the cluster are still available, and therefore the cluster is kept operational.

Step 0: Preparations

Step 0.1: Access the Kubernetes Playground

We use the CKA Killerkoda playground. It comes with two nodes, a master and a slave.

Step 0.2 (optional): Configure auto-completion

The Katacoda Kubernetes Playground has defined the alias and auto-completion already. Only in case you are running your tests in another environment, we recommend issuing the following two commands:

alias k=kubectl
source <(kubectl completion bash)

Auto-completion for the alias k for can be enabled with the following command:

source <(kubectl completion bash | sed 's/kubectl/k/g')
# or alternatively: complete -F __start_kubectl k

Once this is done, k g<tab> will be auto-completed to k get and k get pod <tab><tab> will reveal the name(s) of the available POD(s).

Step 0.3 (required): Untaint the master

As we have learned in the previous blog post, the default taints on the master prevent „normal“ PODs with no tolerations to be scheduled on the master. For testing affinity rules, we need two worker nodes as a minimum. Since the Katacoda Kubernetes Playground provides us with a master and a single worker node only, we need to remove the taint from the master, so we can use it similar to normal worker nodes:

# check before:
kubectl describe nodes | egrep "Name:|Taints:"
Name:               controlplane
Taints:             node-role.kubernetes.io/control-plane:NoSchedule
Name:               node01
Taints:             <none>

# remove taint:
kubectl taint node controlplane node-role.kubernetes.io/master-
node/master untainted

# check the taints after removal:
kubectl describe nodes | egrep "Name:|Taints:"
Name:               controlplane
Taints:             <none>
Name:               node01
Taints:             <none>

Task 1: Use Node Selector to place a POD on a specific Node

We have two possibilities to control the location of a POD: node selectors and node affinity rules. Let us start with the simpler node selector:

Step 1.1: Check Labels

Each node is assigned labels that can be used to manipulate, where a POD will be scheduled. Let us check the labels on our two nodes:

k get nodes --show-labels 
NAME           STATUS   ROLES           AGE   VERSION   LABELS
controlplane   Ready    control-plane   9d    v1.25.3   beta.kubernetes.io/arch=amd64,beta.kubernetes.io/os=linux,kubernetes.io/arch=amd64,kubernetes.io/hostname=controlplane,kubernetes.io/os=linux,node-role.kubernetes.io/control-plane=,node.kubernetes.io/exclude-from-external-load-balancers=
node01         Ready    <none>          9d    v1.25.3   beta.kubernetes.io/arch=amd64,beta.kubernetes.io/os=linux,kubernetes.io/arch=amd64,kubernetes.io/hostname=node01,kubernetes.io/os=lin

Step 1.2: Create a YAML file with nodeSelector

PODs cannot be changed after creation, and we have not found any possibility to specify the nodeSelector in the k run command. Therefore we create a YAML file with the nodeSelector

k run node-selector-pod --image nginx --dry-run=client -o yaml > node-selector-pod.yaml

Then let us edit the file and add the parts in blue:

# node-selector-pod.yaml
apiVersion: v1
kind: Pod
metadata:
  labels:
    run: node-selector-pod
  name: node-selector-pod
spec:
  containers:
  - image: nginx
    name: node-selector-pod
  nodeSelector:
    kubernetes.io/hostname: controlplane

There, we have chosen the hostname label to specify that the POD should be located on the controlplane.

Step 1.3: Create POD from the YAML File

Now we can create the POD:

k create -f node-selector-pod.yaml 
pod/node-selector-pod created

Step 1.4: Check the location of the POD

We now can verify that the POD was indeed scheduled on the controlplane node:

k get pod -o wide
NAME                READY   STATUS              RESTARTS   AGE   IP       NODE           NOMINATED NODE   READINESS GATES
node-selector-pod   0/1     ContainerCreating   0          6s    <none>   controlplane   <none>           <none>

Task 2: Node Affinity „hard“ Rule Example

Step 2.1: Create a POD with Node Affinity Rule

Let us now create a deployment with a POD spec with a node affinity rule:

cat <<EOF | kubectl create -f -
apiVersion: apps/v1
kind: Deployment
metadata:
  name: nginx-deployment
spec:
  replicas: 2
  selector:
    matchLabels:
      app: nginx
  template:
    metadata:
      labels:
        app: nginx
    spec:
      affinity:
        nodeAffinity:
          requiredDuringSchedulingIgnoredDuringExecution:
            nodeSelectorTerms:
            - matchExpressions:
              - key: myKey
                operator: In
                values:
                - label1
                - label2
      containers:
      - name: nginx
        image: nginx:1.7.9
        ports:
        - containerPort: 80
EOF

# output:
deployment.apps/nginx-deployment created

You will find the affinity rule in blue.

Since neither label1 nor label2 is defined on any node, the PODs have a Pending status:

kubectl get POD -o wide
NAME                               READY   STATUS    RESTARTS   AGE     IP       NODE     NOMINATED NODE   READINESS GATES
nginx-deployment-8c64b4cf7-plkd9   0/1     Pending   0          6m20s   <none>   <none>   <none>           <none>
nginx-deployment-8c64b4cf7-rb52g   0/1     Pending   0          6m20s   <none>   <none>   <none>           <none>

The reason can be found in the events:

kubectl describe pod nginx-deployment-8c64b4cf7-plkd9 | grep Events: -A 20
Events:
  Type     Reason            Age                  From               Message
  ----     ------            ----                 ----               -------
  Warning  FailedScheduling  67s (x7 over 8m18s)  default-scheduler  0/2 nodes are available: 2 node(s) didn't match node selector.

Interestingly, the event message is identical to the one we find with nodeSelector rules in such a situation: 0/2 nodes are available: 2 node(s) didn't match node selector.

Step 2.2: Create a matching Label on the Master Node

Now we set the label myKey=label2 on the master:

kubectl label nodes master myKey=label1
node/master labeled

Immediately thereafter, the PODs enter the ContainerCreating and Running status:


kubectl get POD -o wide
NAME                               READY   STATUS              RESTARTS   AGE   IP       NODE     NOMINATED NODE   READINESS GATES
nginx-deployment-8c64b4cf7-plkd9   0/1     ContainerCreating   0          15m   <none>   master   <none>           <none>
nginx-deployment-8c64b4cf7-rb52g   0/1     ContainerCreating   0          15m   <none>   master   <none>           <none>

Step 2.3: Remove the Label

For checking, what happens with running PODs, if a label is removed, let us do so now:

kubectl describe nodes master | grep myKey
                    myKey=label2

kubectl label nodes master myKey-
node/master labeled

kubectl describe nodes master | grep myKey
<no output>

Step 2.4: Check the POD Status

Now we can see that the PODs are still running on the master:

kubectl get pods -o wide
NAME                               READY   STATUS    RESTARTS   AGE   IP          NODE     NOMINATED NODE   READINESS GATES
nginx-deployment-8c64b4cf7-plkd9   1/1     Running   0          43m   10.32.0.5   master   <none>           <none>
nginx-deployment-8c64b4cf7-rb52g   1/1     Running   0          43m   10.32.0.4   master   <none>           <none>

This is meant with the second part of the requiredDuringSchedulingIgnoredDuringExecution mode: the node affinity rule is irrelevant for PODs that are up and running on a node. Only new nodes will enter the Pending state:

kubectl scale deployment nginx-deployment --replicas=3
deployment.extensions/nginx-deployment scaled

kubectl get pods -o wide
NAME                               READY   STATUS    RESTARTS   AGE   IP          NODE     NOMINATED NODE   READINESS GATES
nginx-deployment-8c64b4cf7-plkd9   1/1     Running   0          48m   10.32.0.5   master   <none>           <none>
nginx-deployment-8c64b4cf7-rb52g   1/1     Running   0          48m   10.32.0.4   master   <none>           <none>
nginx-deployment-8c64b4cf7-w4gk8   0/1     Pending   0          4s    <none>      <none>   <none>           <none>

Task 3: Node Affinity „soft“ Rule Example

In this task, we will show the difference between the two modes

requiredDuringSchedulingIgnoredDuringExecution
preferredDuringSchedulingIgnoredDuringExecution

We have seen above that the first mode is a hard requirement during the time the PODs are scheduled: i.e. PODs that do not find a matching label will enter the Pending status.

Step 3.1: Remove Label from Master, if present

We now will make sure the label of the master does not match:

kubectl label nodes master myKey-

Step 3.2: Create „soft“ Affinity Rule

However, what happens to PODs that have a „soft“ node affinity rule preferredDuringSchedulingIgnoredDuringExecution? For testing this, let us edit the deployment corresponding line

kubectl edit deploy nginx-deployment

and change the blue part as depicted below:

apiVersion: apps/v1
...
    spec:
      affinity:
        nodeAffinity:
          preferredDuringSchedulingIgnoredDuringExecution:
          - weight: 1           # <----- added
            preference:         # <----- replaced: nodeSelectorTerms -> preference
              matchExpressions: # <----- replaced array by map (removed "-")
              - key: myKey
                operator: In
                values:
                - label1
                - label2
...

# output:
deployment.apps/nginx-deployment edited

The syntax for node affinity rules with preferredDuringSchedulingIgnoredDuringExecution is quite a bit different from the one with requiredDuringSchedulingIgnoredDuringExecution:

we need to replace the nodeSelectorTerms by preference.
We had to add a weight parameter in the range of 1 to 100. For each scheduling requirement like resource constraints, and matching preference expressions, the scheduler adds the weight to the node. The node with the highest sum of weights is preferred.
Moreover, the matchExpressions part is a map and not a list of maps anymore. This is, why the minus sign before matchExpressions part had to be removed.

Step 3.3: Verify that new PODs are launched

You will see that there is a rolling update of the POD:

kubectl get pods -o wide
NAME                                READY   STATUS              RESTARTS   AGE     IP          NODE     NOMINATED NODE   READINESS GATES
nginx-deployment-795c767956-j4wwt   1/1     Running             0          65s     10.40.0.1   node01   <none>           <none>
nginx-deployment-795c767956-z2xvp   0/1     ContainerCreating   0          18s     <none>      master   <none>           <none>
nginx-deployment-8c64b4cf7-ph95r    0/1     Pending             0          4m37s   <none>      <none>   <none>           <none>

Therefore, new PODs are replacing the old, Pending PODs. After two minutes or so, the new PODs should be up and running:

kubectl get pods -o wide
NAME                                READY   STATUS    RESTARTS   AGE   IP          NODE     NOMINATED NODE   READINESS GATES
nginx-deployment-795c767956-j4wwt   1/1     Running   0          15m   10.40.0.1   node01   <none>           <none>
nginx-deployment-795c767956-z2xvp   1/1     Running   0          14m   10.32.0.2   master   <none>           <none>

Task 4: POD (Anti-) Affinity „hard“ Rule Examples

POD affinity controls, which node is preferred based on labels of other PODs already running on the node rather than based on labels on nodes.

Step 4.1 Untaint the master

We make sure that the master is not tainted again, so we allow PODs to run on the master. We redo this now since we want the tasks to be independent of each other

# remove taint:
kubectl taint node master node-role.kubernetes.io/master-
node/master untainted

Step 4.2: Create a POD with an affinity towards app=nginx

We now create a second deployment:

cat <<EOF | kubectl create -f -
apiVersion: apps/v1
kind: Deployment
metadata:
  name: nginx2
spec:
  replicas: 20
  selector:
    matchLabels:
      app: nginx2
  template:
    metadata:
      labels:
        app: nginx2
    spec:
      affinity:
        podAffinity:
          requiredDuringSchedulingIgnoredDuringExecution:
          - topologyKey: kubernetes.io/hostname
            labelSelector: 
              matchExpressions:  #<---- unlike nodeSelectorTerms in case of nodeAffinity, this is not a list, so the minus sign is missing here
              - key: app
                operator: In
                values:
                - nginx
      containers:
      - name: nginx
        image: nginx:1.7.9
        ports:
        - containerPort: 80
EOF

# output:
deployment.apps/nginx2 created

Since we have chosen the affinity rule as a hard requirement (requiredDuringScheduling…), and no nginx app is available yet, all PODs remain Pending:

kubectl get pods
NAME                      READY   STATUS    RESTARTS   AGE
nginx2-5f99855798-2pcqn   0/1     Pending   0          2m2s
nginx2-5f99855798-52d2j   0/1     Pending   0          2m1s
nginx2-5f99855798-5b7fd   0/1     Pending   0          2m1s
nginx2-5f99855798-842kn   0/1     Pending   0          2m1s
nginx2-5f99855798-8mdgb   0/1     Pending   0          2m1s
...

Step 4.3: Run a POD with app=nginx via Deployment

However, if we create a POD with app=nginx label, we expect the PODs to be launched:

# run a POD with a label
kubectl create deployment --image=nginx nginx

This will create a POD with label app=nginx (among others):

kubectl get pod -o wide --show-labels
NAME                     READY   STATUS    RESTARTS   AGE   IP          NODE     NOMINATED NODE   READINESS GATES   LABELS
nginx-54f85c574b-rzdjc   1/1     Running   0          12m   10.44.0.2   node01   <none>           <none>            app=nginx,pod-template-hash=54f85c574b

Step 4.4: Verify that the dependent PODs are launched on the same node

And yes, the PODs are created and finally reach the Running state:

kubectl get pods
NAME                      READY   STATUS              RESTARTS   AGE
nginx-65f88748fd-g5mbs    0/1     ContainerCreating   0          3s
nginx2-5f99855798-2pcqn   0/1     ContainerCreating   0          2m10s
nginx2-5f99855798-52d2j   0/1     Pending             0          2m9s
nginx2-5f99855798-5b7fd   0/1     Pending             0          2m9s
...

Because the POD with label app=nginx is located on node01 is started on node01, all nginx2 PODs are launched on node01 as well:

kubectl get pods -o wide --show-labels
NAME                      READY   STATUS    RESTARTS   AGE     IP           NODE     NOMINATED NODE   READINESS GATES   LABELS
nginx-65f88748fd-g5mbs    1/1     Running   0          7m8s    10.40.0.9    node01   <none>           <none>            app=nginx,pod-template-hash=65f88748fd
nginx2-5f99855798-2pcqn   1/1     Running   0          9m15s   10.40.0.1    node01   <none>           <none>            app=nginx2,pod-template-hash=5f99855798
nginx2-5f99855798-52d2j   1/1     Running   0          9m14s   10.40.0.19   node01   <none>           <none>            app=nginx2,pod-template-hash=5f99855798
nginx2-5f99855798-5b7fd   1/1     Running   0          9m14s   10.40.0.20   node01   <none>           <none>            app=nginx2,pod-template-hash=5f99855798
...

The affinity rule has made sure that the PODs are started on the same node as the POD with app=nginx.

Step 4.5: Create a POD with an anti-affinity towards app=nginx

Now let us test anti-affinity. We assume that a POD with app=nginx is running on node01 already. Let us start a POD with anti-affinity towards this label:

cat <<EOF | kubectl create -f -
apiVersion: apps/v1
kind: Deployment
metadata:
  name: anti-nginx
spec:
  replicas: 2
  selector:
    matchLabels:
      app: anti-nginx
  template:
    metadata:
      labels:
        app: anti-nginx
    spec:
      affinity:
        podAntiAffinity:
          requiredDuringSchedulingIgnoredDuringExecution:
          - topologyKey: kubernetes.io/hostname
            labelSelector: 
              matchExpressions:  #<---- unlike nodeSelectorTerms in case of nodeAffinity, this is not a list, so the minus sign is missing here
              - key: app
                operator: In
                values:
                - nginx
      containers:
      - name: nginx
        image: nginx:1.7.9
        ports:
        - containerPort: 80
EOF

# output:
deployment.apps/anti-nginx created

We can see, that the POD with app=nginx is running on node01, while the PODs that want to avoid the latter are running on the master:

kubectl get pod -o wide --show-labels | egrep "anti|app=nginx,"
anti-nginx-7698b848b9-tgj4l   1/1     Running   0          2m22s   10.32.0.2    master   <none>           <none>            app=anti-nginx,pod-template-hash=7698b848b9
anti-nginx-7698b848b9-vh977   1/1     Running   0          2m22s   10.32.0.3    master   <none>           <none>            app=anti-nginx,pod-template-hash=7698b848b9
nginx-65f88748fd-vg8w4        1/1     Running   0          6m8s    10.40.0.1    node01   <none>           <none>            app=nginx,pod-template-hash=65f88748fd

Step 4.6: Create self-repelling PODs (hard, „Highlander“ Case)

We can also create a deployment with PODs that repel each other like follows:

cat <<EOF | kubectl create -f -
apiVersion: apps/v1
kind: Deployment
metadata:
  name: highlander
spec:
  replicas: 1
  selector:
    matchLabels:
      app: highlander
  template:
    metadata:
      labels:
        app: highlander
    spec:
      affinity:
        podAntiAffinity:
          requiredDuringSchedulingIgnoredDuringExecution:
          - topologyKey: kubernetes.io/hostname
            labelSelector: 
              matchExpressions:  #<---- unlike nodeSelectorTerms in case of nodeAffinity, this is not a list, so the minus sign is missing here
              - key: app
                operator: In
                values:
                - highlander
      containers:
      - name: nginx
        image: nginx:1.7.9
        ports:
        - containerPort: 80
EOF

# output:
deployment.apps/highlander created

We have called it „highlander“ because there can only be one per node.

k get pods -o wide --show-labels | egrep "NAME|highlander"
NAME                          READY   STATUS    RESTARTS   AGE   IP           NODE     NOMINATED NODE   READINESS GATES   LABELS
highlander-77b4b44dfb-zq59s   1/1     Running   0          69s   10.32.0.4    master   <none>           <none>            app=highlander,pod-template-hash=77b4b44dfb

The first highlander happens to be running on the master. Now let us scale the highlander to two:

kubectl scale deploy highlander --replicas=2
deployment.extensions/highlander scaled

kubectl get pods -o wide --show-labels | egrep "NAME|highlander"
NAME                          READY   STATUS    RESTARTS   AGE    IP           NODE     NOMINATED NODE   READINESS GATES   LABELS
highlander-77b4b44dfb-wvgzp   1/1     Running   0          3s     10.40.0.22   node01   <none>           <none>            app=highlander,pod-template-hash=77b4b44dfb
highlander-77b4b44dfb-zq59s   1/1     Running   0          3m3s   10.32.0.4    master   <none>           <none>            app=highlander,pod-template-hash=77b4b44dfb

We see above that the second highlander is running on node01. The second highlander has found a world of its own.

Now let us try, to scale the highlanders to three:

kubectl scale deploy highlander --replicas=3
deployment.extensions/highlander scaled

kubectl get pods -o wide --show-labels | egrep "NAME|highlander"
NAME                          READY   STATUS    RESTARTS   AGE     IP           NODE     NOMINATED NODE   READINESS GATES   LABELS
highlander-77b4b44dfb-qh5fv   0/1     Pending   0          5s      <none>       <none>   <none>           <none>            app=highlander,pod-template-hash=77b4b44dfb
highlander-77b4b44dfb-wvgzp   1/1     Running   0          99s     10.40.0.22   node01   <none>           <none>            app=highlander,pod-template-hash=77b4b44dfb
highlander-77b4b44dfb-zq59s   1/1     Running   0          4m39s   10.32.0.4    master   <none>           <none>            app=highlander,pod-template-hash=77b4b44dfb

Since we have chosen a „hard“ anti-affinity requirement, the third highlander cannot find a node, where it can run, so it will be kept in pending status.

Task 5: POD Affinity „soft“ Rule Example

In order to make Task 4 independent of the other tasks, we repeat un-tainting the master:

Step 5.1 Untaint the master

We make sure that the master is not tainted, so we allow PODs to run on the master. We redo this now since we want the tasks to be independent of each other

# remove taint:
kubectl taint node master node-role.kubernetes.io/master-
node/master untainted

Step 4.2: Create self-repelling PODs („electron“ example)

Now, let us do the same with a soft requirement: we create a deployment with PODs that repel each other, but this time in preferredDuringSchedulingIgnoredDuringExecution mode:

cat <<EOF | kubectl create -f -
apiVersion: apps/v1
kind: Deployment
metadata:
  name: electron
spec:
  replicas: 1
  selector:
    matchLabels:
      app: electron
  template:
    metadata:
      labels:
        app: electron
    spec:
      affinity:
        podAntiAffinity:
          preferredDuringSchedulingIgnoredDuringExecution:
          - weight: 1
            podAffinityTerm:
              topologyKey: kubernetes.io/hostname #<---- moved under podAffinityTerm
              labelSelector:                      #<---- moved under podAffinityTerm
                matchExpressions:  
                - key: app
                  operator: In
                  values:
                  - electron       
      containers:
      - name: nginx
        image: nginx:1.7.9
        ports:
        - containerPort: 80
EOF

# output:
deployment.apps/electron created

We have renamed the PODs from „highlander“ to „electron“ since there can be more than one POD per node. However, they still repel each other.

kubectl get pods -o wide --show-labels | egrep "NAME|electron"
NAME                        READY   STATUS    RESTARTS   AGE   IP          NODE     NOMINATED NODE   READINESS GATES   LABELS
electron-78df676988-74hmr   1/1     Running   0          32s   10.32.0.2   node01   <none>           <none>            app=electron,pod-template-hash=78df676988

The first electron happens to be running on the node01.

Step 5.3: Verify that the second POD is placed on another Node than the first POD

Now let us scale the electron to two:

kubectl scale deploy electron --replicas=2
deployment.extensions/electron scaled
kubectl get pods -o wide --show-labels | egrep "NAME|electron"
NAME                        READY   STATUS    RESTARTS   AGE     IP          NODE     NOMINATED NODE   READINESS GATES   LABELS
electron-78df676988-74hmr   1/1     Running   0          2m15s   10.32.0.2   node01   <none>           <none>            app=electron,pod-template-hash=78df676988
electron-78df676988-nx89v   1/1     Running   0          25s     10.40.0.1   master   <none>           <none>            app=electron,pod-template-hash=78df676988

The second electron is running on the master since it has been repelled from node01, where an electron is located already.

Step 5.4: Verify that the Rule is „soft“

Now let us try, to scale the electrons to three:

kubectl scale deploy electron --replicas=3
deployment.extensions/electron scaled
kubectl get pods -o wide --show-labels | egrep "NAME|electron"
NAME                        READY   STATUS    RESTARTS   AGE     IP          NODE     NOMINATED NODE   READINESS GATES   LABELS
electron-78df676988-74hmr   1/1     Running   0          4m26s   10.32.0.2   node01   <none>           <none>            app=electron,pod-template-hash=78df676988
electron-78df676988-db6f5   1/1     Running   0          23s     10.32.0.3   node01   <none>           <none>            app=electron,pod-template-hash=78df676988
electron-78df676988-nx89v   1/1     Running   0          2m36s   10.40.0.1   master   <none>           <none>            app=electron,pod-template-hash=78df676988

Since we have chosen a „soft“ anti-affinity requirement, the third electron can find its place on node01 again. Unlike the highlander case above, the POD does not remain in pending status.

Summary

Kubernetes Affinity and Anit-Affinity rules provide us with a rich set of controls, on which node a POD will be launched. Node (anti-) affinity rules allow the scheduler to choose the PODs location based on node labels, while for POD (anti-) affinity rules, the scheduler takes into account, which PODs are already running on a node.

There are two flavors of (anti-) affinity rules: a „hard“ rule (requiredDuringScheduling…) and a „soft“ rule (preferredDuringScheduling…). The latter will try to optimize the POD location based on the rule, but it will still launch the POD on a node, even if the rule cannot be met. On the other side, the hard rule is more strict and might keep a POD in pending status, as long as the rule cannot be met. Both types of rules will be ignored during execution. However, for node selectors, there are plans to provide a requiredDuringSchedulingRequiredDuringExecution version in the future. This kind of affinity rule will affect already running PODs, similar to taints with the „NoExecute“ effect.

4 comments

Pingback: Kubernetes Task: assign a POD to a Node via Node Affinity - Cheat Sheet -
????? ?????? Binance sagt:
April 26, 2024 um 11:52 am Uhr
I don’t think the title of your article matches the content lol. Just kidding, mainly because I had some doubts after reading the article.
Wird geladen...
Antworten
Compte Binance sagt:
Mai 9, 2024 um 6:38 pm Uhr
Can you be more specific about the content of your article? After reading it, I still have some doubts. Hope you can help me.
Wird geladen...
Antworten
Akun Binance sagt:
Juni 23, 2024 um 6:47 pm Uhr
Your point of view caught my eye and was very interesting. Thanks. I have a question for you.
Wird geladen...
Antworten

Comments Antwort abbrechen

Diese Website verwendet Akismet, um Spam zu reduzieren. Erfahre mehr darüber, wie deine Kommentardaten verarbeitet werden.