Skip to content

Conversation

@jukie
Copy link

@jukie jukie commented Dec 24, 2025

Fixes #1719

Description
This is an initial RFC designed around a draft PR I previously submitted under #1720 so that workloads can define a disruption schedule similar to NodePool Disruption Budgets.

How was this change tested?
I'm currently running a custom controller similar to https://github.com/jukie/karpenter-deprovision-controller (just a POC, don't use this) based on this design.

I've separately just discovered #2656 which may overlap a bit. @moko-poi I'd love to collaborate on something.

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: jukie
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign derekfrank for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

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

Details Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

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

@jukie jukie changed the title RFC: Add Disruption Schedule RFC RFC: Add Disruption Schedule design Dec 24, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. label Dec 24, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @jukie. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a github.com member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Details

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. labels Dec 24, 2025
@jukie jukie changed the title RFC: Add Disruption Schedule design docs: Add Disruption Schedule RFC Dec 24, 2025
@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Dec 24, 2025

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 20480180374

Details

  • 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
  • 7 unchanged lines in 2 files lost coverage.
  • Overall coverage remained the same at 80.318%

Files with Coverage Reduction New Missed Lines %
pkg/controllers/provisioning/scheduling/nodeclaim.go 3 89.63%
pkg/controllers/disruption/consolidation.go 4 88.0%
Totals Coverage Status
Change from base Build 20440177454: 0.0%
Covered Lines: 11969
Relevant Lines: 14902

💛 - Coveralls

Clarified the interaction between disruption schedules and do-not-disrupt mechanisms in the documentation.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Support more expressive Pod Disruption Controls

3 participants