Skip to content

Commit f1c8258

Browse files
authored
Merge pull request kubernetes#2793 from ravisantoshgudimetla/clarify-minReady-Seconds
Clarify StatefulSets minReadySeconds
2 parents d2d92a9 + 129f358 commit f1c8258

File tree

1 file changed

+10
-1
lines changed
  • keps/sig-apps/2599-minreadyseconds-for-statefulsets

1 file changed

+10
-1
lines changed

keps/sig-apps/2599-minreadyseconds-for-statefulsets/README.md

Lines changed: 10 additions & 1 deletion
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -164,6 +164,12 @@ minReadySeconds is already available as an optional field for Deployments,
164164
DaemonSets, ReplicasSets and Replication Controllers. Enabling this option
165165
helps in bringing StatefulSets on par with other workload controllers.
166166

167+
Note: The important point to understand is when will a pod be considered
168+
`Ready` which might depend on the container probes configured. For example,
169+
for a pod with single container having a readiness check with `initialDelaySeconds`,
170+
for the pod to considered `Available` it has to be implicitly `Ready` for
171+
`initialDelaySeconds`+`minReadySeconds`.
172+
167173
### Goals
168174

169175
StatefulSet Controller honoring minReadySeconds and mark Pod ready only if Pod
@@ -173,12 +179,15 @@ is available for given time mentioned in minReadySeconds.
173179

174180
Moving minReadySeconds to Pod Spec is beyond the scope of this KEP
175181
because of following reasons:
176-
- The effort to change pod spec would be large.
182+
- The effort to change pod spec would be large. While this also helps other controllers like
183+
endpoint controller to look at the pod status and propagate, the main goal of this KEP is to introduce
184+
minReadySeconds field to StatefulSet spec to bring consistency.
177185
- Currently our workload controllers are inconsistent and we prioritize consistency of experience.
178186
- StatefulSets are just different enough from daemonsets and deployments that real world use of minReadySeconds
179187
for stateful sets might influence any future design or point in a more appropriate direction.
180188

181189
More information about the discussion can be found [here](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/65098)
190+
and why we are going ahead with this approach as there was consensus to bring consistency of experience.
182191

183192

184193
## Proposal

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)