WIP: docs: Add RFC for multi-node consolidation partitioning

[cnmcavoy]

Fixes #853

Description
Add RFC for multi-node consolidation partitioning

How was this change tested?
N/A

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: cnmcavoy
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign njtran for approval. For more information see the Kubernetes Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 12381554748

Details

• 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
• 12 unchanged lines in 3 files lost coverage.
• Overall coverage decreased (-0.1%) to 81.187%

---

Files with Coverage Reduction	New Missed Lines	%
pkg/utils/termination/termination.go	2	92.31%
pkg/controllers/provisioning/scheduling/nodeclaim.go	3	85.64%
pkg/controllers/provisioning/scheduling/preferences.go	7	86.52%

Totals
Change from base Build 12303032942:	-0.1%
Covered Lines:	9015
Relevant Lines:	11104

---

💛 - Coveralls

[github-actions]

This PR has been inactive for 14 days. StaleBot will close this stale PR after 14 more days of inactivity.

[njtran]

I think the issue is more around how we order our nodes in consolidation, right?

We order our nodes by the estimated cost to disrupt the pods on that node, and then find some contiguous group of nodes from 0 that are compatible. If the set of candidates are ordered in such a way that each alternating node has a different architecture, you'll never be able to get multi-node consolidation. How were you thinking this might impact that complication today?

[cnmcavoy]

Does the estimated disruption cost ordering need to be changed? The disruption cost is independent of whether the node is compatible to be consolidated with another node.

What I am proposing is to bin the nodes together with nodes they are compatible. This part is the hand-wavey, and a bit arbitrary; Karpenter has to decide where the boundaries for whether candidates should be consolidated. If Karpenter picks bad boundaries (current situation) then there are two many or two few bins, and consolidation fails. This is also where I am most interested in input... what are the boundaries for each bin that is roughly compatible. Just CPU architecture? CPU architecture and node pool? Maybe the node's operating system should be a boundary.

[njtran]

What I am proposing is to bin the nodes together with nodes they are compatible.

The problem is more about compatibility in between pods, right? I can see what you're saying that right now, every node is in its own bucket (no pre-defined ordering). We can either create arbitrary buckets/groupings and use that as a heuristic for grouping nodes in our consolidation ordering. The closest generalization for partitioning would be if we could group all nodes from the same nodepool together, but I think even then you're still hitting the same multi-arch issue on your NodePool, so you actually probably want to make the grouping separate from the NodePool.

If we just make it on CPU architecture, you probably solve most of the issues here, but I need to think more about how this might work in practice.

[github-actions]

This PR has been inactive for 14 days. StaleBot will close this stale PR after 14 more days of inactivity.

[github-actions]

This PR has been inactive for 14 days. StaleBot will close this stale PR after 14 more days of inactivity.

[github-actions]

This PR has been inactive for 14 days. StaleBot will close this stale PR after 14 more days of inactivity.