+1 to dealing with GPU's with the existing SIG's, rather than spawning a
new SIG (for all the reasons already mentioned).
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Derek Carr wrote:
> I would prefer that we promote the existing resource management group to a
> proper SIG before we
I would prefer that we promote the existing resource management group to a
proper SIG before we elevate creation of a new SIG.
Prior to doing that, I would like this group to fulfill its stated
intention in Q1 of identifying a roadmap for this year, and a mechanism to
support custom isolation and
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 2:11 PM, 'David Oppenheimer' via Kubernetes
developer/contributor discussion wrote:
> I think there are three existing forums that would be preferable to
> creating another SIG:
> - sig-scheduling
> - sig-node
> - resource management
I think there are three existing forums that would be preferable to
creating another SIG:
- sig-scheduling
- sig-node
- resource management working group (comprised of sig-scheduling and
sig-node folks)
I'm concerned that the number of meetings on closely related topics is
reaching a point where
Hey Folks,
I'd like to propose a new Kubernetes SIG, SIG-GPU which focuses on
GPU-based workloads for Kubernetes. I'm seeing increased interest in these
workloads, and there are some very scheduler/modelling specific things to
GPUs that I think we want to figure out how to model. Not to
I have a utility cluster ("cloudops"), created with kops, that I use for a
bunch of non-customer facing, DevOps-y workloads. I decided to give
Federation a shot for my customer-facing clusters.
So, I created two kubernetes clusters ("appo" and "cody") in AWS with
`kops` with the following
Thanks tim. Got it
On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 1:56:59 PM UTC+5:30, Tim Hockin wrote:
>
> The new field is called 'envFrom'
>
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 7:42 PM,
> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 3:05:02 AM UTC+5:30, Rodrigo Campos
> wrote:
> >>
The new field is called 'envFrom'
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 7:42 PM, wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 3:05:02 AM UTC+5:30, Rodrigo Campos wrote:
>> Cool. So is it working now? :)
>>
>> On Tuesday, February 7, 2017, Vinoth Narasimhan wrote: