-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
APP.4.4.A19 #45
Comments
|
We could check, if the nodes (potentially individually for master and worker nodes) have labels set for topology.kubernetes.io/zone. This would indicate a distribution of nodes across "fire zones". |
additional we might check if there are multiple masters/workers, missing masters are quite surely an indicator of missing distribution. while checking masters might be easy, the check of workers might be difficult, because a user could have several nodetypes. maybe we could check each machineconfigset, if the number of selected nodes is higher than 1?. i cannot identify any checks for this in the upstream |
Ongoing implementation in ComplianceAsCode#11659 |
I am unsure, whether to include a rule that checks deployments and statefulsets, if their pods are spread across nodes or zones using anti-affinity and/or topologySpreadConstraints. While it is technically possible (I have implemented it), it results in a lot of results, e.g.:
When filtering for deployments that have > 1 replicas I get:
I believe for a multitude of deployments, it is totally valid to not configure high availability and restarts are sufficient... Need input @ermeratos @sluetze ! Options I see: -> I have implemented Variant b) with configurable exclusion (c) for now |
As our customers tend to want to have a rule rather than not having it (they can tailor it out at any time) and you already have done the implementation work I would go with b + c. The exclusion seems to be necessary for such rules, as we had several occurences of hard-coded exclusions which needed to become configurable afterwards. |
During rebasing, I accidentially closed the previous PR. For better reviewability, I created a new PR: ComplianceAsCode#12155 |
No description provided.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: