Issue opened: https://github.com/coreos/etcd-operator/issues/1676
Please let me know if it needs more clarification On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 2:51 PM Drew Wells <[email protected]> wrote: > I can, thanks! > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 2:36 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > >> etcd operator currently only supports anti-affinity across nodes. >> However, it could extend the feature beyond that. >> Could you create an issue and describe your use case to >> https://github.com/coreos/etcd-operator/ >> ? >> Thanks! >> >> On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 10:51:54 AM UTC-8, Drew Wells wrote: >>> >>> We want to spread etcd deployed by etcd-operator across different AZs. >>> In theory, our etcd cluster could then survive a node going down since no >>> more than 1 etcd pod would be running on it. >>> >>> >>> As an example, if we have kubernetes nodes in 3 different AZs: AZ1, >>> AZ2, AZ3. >>> >>> Now I create a deployment with size: 3 for etcd. The desired behavior is >>> this pods are created: etcd-0001 on AZ1, etcd-0002 on AZ2, and etcd-003 on >>> AZ3. Basically, we desire per pod taints that decrease the change an etcd >>> pod will be scheduled with a peer on the same node. I've searched through >>> the database for a hack to make this happen. It doesn't appear possible to >>> do per pod behavior like this. >>> >>> Are there recommendations for getting better reliability of an etcd >>> cluster when a AZ becomes unavailable outside of what's been described in >>> this example? >>> >>> Best, >>> Drew >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>
