-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6
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
Support Ad-hoc Operations for Server Management #77
Comments
Just as an information, metal3's annotation design allows multiple controllers to set the power state independently: https://book.metal3.io/bmo/reboot_annotation#phased-reboot |
I would vote for option 1 |
Then I would suggest, that we proceed with option one. |
do we have a list of operations we want to support? |
At least for reboot and power cycle there seems to some overlap with #76, which would be a declarative solution. I expect the implementation not arriving soon. In the meanwhile going with an annotation is fine, because it's not part of the API contract and can be removed with ease. |
@afritzler did I understand |
The question is: do we want to |
I would hope that the servers bmc would then just ignore it in this case. If not, maybe it was something the enduser wanted to do? For me the more important question is: |
Summary:
We need to extend our declarative model with resources like
Server
andServerClaim
to support ad-hoc operations such as reboot or power cycle of a server. This enhancement aims to address how we can incorporate imperative operations within the declarative Kubernetes API model.Background:
Currently, our API allows managing bare metal servers using
Server
andServerClaim
resources. However, we face challenges in supporting ad-hoc operations, which are inherently imperative and contradict the declarative nature of the Kubernetes API model.Proposed Solutions:
Annotations-based Approach:
Server
resource.metal.ironcore.dev/operations: PowerCycle
.Pros:
Cons:
Aggregated API Server with SubResources:
PowerCycle
andReboot
for theServer
resource.POST /apis/metal.ironcore.dev/v1/namespaces/{namespace}/servers/{name}/powercycle
.Pros:
Cons:
Request for Comments:
We seek feedback on the following points:
Next Steps:
Based on the feedback, we will:
Additional Context:
Please provide your feedback and suggestions to help us move forward with this enhancement.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: