CPU request corresponds to fair share CPU - if you cross over your limit you use the slack capacity. Memory request determines most scheduling (we place you on a node if it has at least request memory available). Memory limit is a hard limit, and CPU limit is a hard limit (if you have 0.1 core limit, you can never run more than 10% of CPU time).
When you use overcommit, we rewrite either limit or requests. If you see CPU or memory above limit, that's definitely a bug. On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Srinivas Naga Kotaru (skotaru) < [email protected]> wrote: > Can someone comment on this? > > > > > > -- > > *Srinivas Kotaru* > > > > *From: *Srinivas Naga Kotaru <[email protected]> > *Date: *Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 12:25 PM > *To: *dev <[email protected]> > *Subject: *Usage is more then Limits > > > > Hi > > > > Is it possible Usage is more than Limits? Observed some nodes has more > Usage then allowed Limits in our cluster. We have a Quota’s implemented, > LimitRagen enabled per project (Defaults Limits and Requests) and Cluster > overcommit % specified (10 % CPU Limits and 25 % Memory Limits as requests > for scheduling to take place) > > > > It is my understanding based on above data, is requets always 1/10 fo CPU > and ¼ of memory and Limits can go as much specified by clients but Usage > should be less then Limits as clients can’t go beyound Limits. > > > > > > -- > > *Srinivas Kotaru* > > _______________________________________________ > dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshiftmm/listinfo/dev > >
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshiftmm/listinfo/dev
