[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Pod persistence without replication controller



+1 on the use of a statefulset - you can still scale up but the new
pod should get its own storage

StatefulSets provide more consistency guarantees than RCs.

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 8:57 PM, Joel Pearson
<japearson agiledigital com au> wrote:
> You could use a StatefulSet if you want a consistent hostname, it would also
> ensure that there is a always one running.
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 at 3:49 am, Feld, Michael (IMS) <FeldM imsweb com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone know why a standalone pod (without a replication controller)
>> sometimes persists through a host/node reboot, but not all times (not
>> evacuating first)? We have a database pod that we cannot risk scaling, and
>> want to ensure that it’s always running.
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Information in this e-mail may be confidential. It is intended only for
>> the addressee(s) identified above. If you are not the addressee(s), or an
>> employee or agent of the addressee(s), please note that any dissemination,
>> distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If
>> you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender of the
>> error.
>> _______________________________________________
>> users mailing list
>> users lists openshift redhat com
>> http://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshiftmm/listinfo/users
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list
> users lists openshift redhat com
> http://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshiftmm/listinfo/users
>


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]