On May 30, 2016 11:37 AM, "Matthias Rampke" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On May 30, 2016 6:54 PM, "'Daniel Smith' via Containers at Google" < [email protected]> wrote: > > > > I don't think there's a reason not to arrange things like you say. Our scripts do what they do on account of simplicity. As far as possible post-hoc rationalizations go, added network latency may be an issue, but you'd have to measure. > > FWIW, according to the answers to my question about this a while back, with multiple apiservers you should turn on quorum reads, so latency will be dominated by that anyway. However, because of the caching/watches, this doesn't impact API latency too much.
Yes, I agree with this. However, this still adds an actual network hop (as opposed to a same machine connection). For things like listing all pods, extra time to transfer all of the data could be significant. Maybe not. I'd probably measure it at the intended scale (look up 'kubemark') before running a large cluster in that configuration. We expect 1.4 will store data in binary instead of json, which will greatly reduce the size of such requests. (1.3 talks binary between components but not to storage) > > /mr > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Containers at Google" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/google-containers. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Containers at Google" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/google-containers. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
