Code change:
Is this a BUG REPORT or FEATURE REQUEST?: Bug Report /kind bug What happened: improved disk eviction testing to make it more precise. For example, it expects a pod which uses 299 Mb of disk not to be evicted if it sets its limit to 300 Mi. As shown on , this test passes for all OS distributions except CoreOS. I have ruled out an issue with the storage driver and backing filesystem since both COS and CoreOS use overlay backed by extfs. What you expected to happen: I expected the pod using 299Mb not to be evicted when its limit is 300 Mb. I expected not to see this event: How to reproduce it (as minimally and precisely as possible): The container runs this command to use 299Mb: Each iteration writes 1Mb to disk, producing a total of 299 Mb of disk usage. The pod has set to 300Mi. The test has the LocalStorageCapacityIsolation feature gate enabled. Anything else we need to know?: This may be a discrepancy in the (which we use to measure container disk usage) or , which is used by the test to write exact quantities of disk.
/sig node
cc can you take a look at this after thanksgiving?
I bumped the coreos image... going to see if it clears up the flake
It appears the root filesystem is being included in the disk space calculation . Do you think the coreos image might be slightly larger than the other images under test?
One more code snippet that is interesting:
thats the container's root filesystem
correct. the feature appears to add and compare to the quota: The reproducible steps do not take into account the rootfs space. If the quota is set to 300Mi, then the under loop count would have to take into account the rootfs space to not exceed the limit. I do not see anywhere in the tests or the reproduce steps this part of the calculation.
The refers only to the writable layer of the container, and excludes base (image) layers. With the provided command, the only files that are in the container's rootfs are the ones written by the command, and should amount to 299Mb. Additionally, the container does not write any logs (through stdout), so that value should be 0.
I ran a quick test on a vm with the current image, and found that both and correctly wrote and measured disk space correctly. I also tested as it inside a container, and verified that we are measuring the container's writable layer correctly. My guess now is that it has something to do with how we calculate disk usage by logging with journald. I am looking into it
Actually, the previous comment was incorrect. When I ran the test, I found that each file was 1028 kb instead of 1024 kb, which resulted in the command writing 300.3 Mb instead of 299 Mb. I will change the test to require slightly less precision. This appears to be because an empty file in coreos takes up 4 kb. Test this by running . On other OS we test on, empty files use 0 kb. This is what accounts for the difference.
I tracked down an issue to the dd call. The stdout and stderr need a redirect to /dev/null to suppress the following messages: Problem Line: Fix:
I PRed that fix and changed it to stderr, since the other tests seem to use stderr.
leaving this open until we get a green run
I'll continue to test locally to see if I find anything else.
opened PR with the help of and CoreOS defaults to using the actual size instead of the apprent size.

Related discussion:
text: }, { evictionPriority: 0, <del> pod: diskConsumingPod("guaranteed-disk", 299 /* Mb */, nil, v1.ResourceRequirements{ </del> <ins> // Only require 99% accuracy (297/300 Mb) because on some OS distributions, the file itself (excluding contents), consumes disk space. pod: diskConsumingPod("guaranteed-disk", 297 /* Mb */, nil, v1.ResourceRequirements{ </ins> Requests: v1.ResourceList{ v1.ResourceEphemeralStorage: resource.MustParse("300Mi"), },