Add a resource fit predicate.

Not linked into any scheduler yet.
Hi.  Thanks for asking.  I do feel somewhat strongly about it :-).

basically: let's not introduce different semantics for container::pod and
pod::node relationships unless we have an incredibly good reason.

A "request" for a node can be thought of as what you ask for when you ask
your cloud provider for a new VM in which to put pods.  What you probably
care about here (although I haven't had time to check for sure) is the
"capacity" of a node.

Let's turn this around: what reasons are there for introducing new types?
I'm not sure there's a compelling case.
  john


On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Brendan Burns <notifications@github.com>
wrote:

> In pkg/api/types.go:
>
> >  // Minion is a worker node in Kubernetenes.
> >  // The name of the minion according to etcd is in JSONBase.ID.
> >  type Minion struct {
> >  	JSONBase `json:",inline" yaml:",inline"`
> >  	// Queried from cloud provider, if available.
> >  	HostIP string `json:"hostIP,omitempty" yaml:"hostIP,omitempty"`
> > +	// Resources available on the node
> > +	NodeResources Resources `json:"resources,omitempty" yaml:"resources,omitempty"`
>
> The docs:
>
> https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/kubernetes/blob/master/docs/resources.md#resource-specifications
>
> Seem to indicate the same resource specification for both nodes and pods,
> but I don't feel strongly about it.
>
> --
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
> <https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/kubernetes/pull/1474/files#r18133237>
> .
>