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.

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

Add working group meeting notes #182

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 5, 2020
Merged
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
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
29 changes: 27 additions & 2 deletions docs/working-group/README.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -10,5 +10,30 @@ Please contribute to our meeting notes by opening a PR.
2. Work Items
3. Demos

## November 20th, 2020
TODO: Notes. See you there!
# Meeting Notes (12/4/2020)

## Attendees
@ellistarn
@prateekgogia
@gjtempleton
@shreyas87

## Notes:
- [Ellis] Shared background
- [Guy] Cloudwatch metrics, ECS scaling using cloudwatch metrics for autoscaling.
- [Guy] Karpenter supporting generic cloudwatch metrics?
- [Guy] Node autoscaling is supported?
- [Ellis] Cloud provider like model for cloudwatch, provider model exists in scalable node group side.
- [Ellis] Cloudwatch could support Prometheus API?
- [Ellis] We can have a direct cloudwatch integration and later refine it?
- [Guy] Implementing a generic cloud provider in core in CA.
- [Ellis] Will explore integration with cloudwatch directly, prefered will be coud provider model.
- [Guy] Contributions- People in squad will be interested, open to contribute features if it provides value to the team.
- [Guy] Scaling on non-pending pods and other resources, people have been asking. Karpenter looks promising for these aspects.
- [Ellis] - Long term goal, upstream project as an alternative. As open as possible and vendor neutral.
- [Guy] - There is a space for an alternative, given the history CA works around pending pods. Wider adoption possible if mature.
- [Ellis] - Landing point will be sig-autoscaling.
- [Guy] - CA lacks cron scheduling scaling.
- [Ellis] - pending pods are a big requirements.
- [Prateek] - introduced the pending pods producer proposal.
- [Ellis] - Move time earlier by an hour and change day to Thursday, create a GH issue to get feedback what time works?
29 changes: 0 additions & 29 deletions docs/working-group/notes/notes_12-4-2020.md

This file was deleted.