A lot of cool new features fly under the radar during a major release announcement. Even the new DRS algorithm didn’t get much air time. One thing that I discovered this week, is that vSphere 7 allows for vMotion with an attached remote device attached.

When using the VM Remote Console, you can attach ISOs stored on your local machine to the VM. An incredibly useful tool that allows you to quickly configure a VM.

The feature avoids the hassle of uploading an ISO to a shared datastore, but unfortunately, it does disable vMotion for that particular machine.

Even worse, this prohibits DRS to migrate it for load-balancing reasons, but maybe even more annoying, it will fail maintenance mode. We’ve all been there, putting a host into maintenance mode, to notice ten minutes later that the host isn’t placed in MM-mode. Once you exit MM to figure out what’s going on DRS seems to be on steroids and piles on every moveable VM it can find onto that host again.

With vSphere 7, this enhancement makes that problem a thing of the past. vMotions will work, and that means so does DRS and Maintenance Mode.

When a VM is vMotioned with a remote device attached, the session ends as the connection is closed. In vSphere 7, when a vMotion is initiated, the VMX process sends a disconnect command with a session cookie to the source ESXi host. The device is marked as remote and once the vMotion process is complete, the remote device is connected through VMRC again. Any buffered accesses to the device are completed.

Please note that the feature “vSphere vMotion with attached remote devices” is a vSphere 7 feature only and that means that it only works when migrating between vSphere 7 hosts.

It has the look and feel of a small function upgrade, but I’m sure it will reduce a lot of frustration during maintenance windows.

vSphere 7 with Kubernetes enables the vSphere cluster to run and manage containers as native constructs (vSphere Pods). The previous two articles in this series cover the initial placement of a vSphere pod and compute resource management of individual vSphere pods. This article covers the compute resource management aspect of the vSphere Supervisor namespace construct. Cormac Hogan will dive into the storage aspects of the Supervisor namespace in his (excellent) blog series.

Supervisor Cluster

A vSphere cluster turns into a Supervisor cluster once Kubernetes is enabled. Three control plane nodes are spun up and placed in the vSphere cluster, and the ESXi nodes within the cluster act as worker node (resource providers) for the Kubernetes cluster. A vSpherelet runs on each ESXi node to control and communicate with the vSphere pod. More information about the container runtime for ESXi is available in the article “Initial Placement of a vSphere pod.” 

Supervisor Namespace

Once up and running, a Supervisor cluster is a contiguous range of compute resources. The chances are that you want to carve up the cluster into smaller pools of resources. Using namespaces turns the supervisor cluster into a multi-tenancy platform. Proper multi-tenancy requires a security model, and the namespace allows the vAdmin to control which users (developers) have access to that namespace. Storage policies that are connected to the namespace provide different types and classes for (persistent) storage for the workload.

Not only vSphere Pods can consume the resources exposed by a Supervisor namespace. Both vSphere pods and virtual machines can be placed inside the namespace. Typically the virtual machine placed inside the namespace could be running a Tanzu Kubernetes Grid Cluster (TKG). Still, you are entirely free to deploy any other virtual machine in a namespace as well. Namespaces allow you to manage application landscapes at a higher level. If you have an application that consists of virtual machines running a traditional setup and adding new services to this application that run in containers, you can group these constructs in a single namespace. Assign the appropriate storage and compute resources to the namespace and monitor the application as a whole. We want to move from managing hundreds or thousands of virtual machines individually to managing a small group of namespaces. (i.e., up-leveling workload management).

Default Namespace

Compute resources are provided to the namespace by a vSphere DRS Resource Pool. This resource pool is not directly exposed, a vAdmin interfaces with the resource pool via the namespace UI. In the screenshot below, you can see a Workload Domain Cluster (WLD) with vSphere with Kubernetes enabled. Inside the Supervisor cluster, a top resource pool “Namespace” is created automatically, and the three Control Plane VMs of the Supervisor cluster are directly deployed in the Namespaces resource pool. (I will address this later). Cormac and I have created a couple of namespaces, and the namespace “frank-ns” is highlighted.

As you can see, this new construct is treated to a new icon. The summary page on the right side of the screen shows the status, the permission (not configured yet), the configured storage policy attached, and the capacity and usage of compute resources. The bottom part of the screen shows whether you have deployed pods or TKG clusters. In this example, three pods are currently running.

Compute Resource Management

With a traditional Resource Pool, the vAdmin can set CPU and memory reservations, shares, and limits to guarantee and restrict the consumption of compute resources. A supervisor namespace does not expose the same settings. A namespace allows the vAdmin to set limits or requests (reservations) and limits on a per-container basis.

Limits

A vAdmin can set a limit on CPU or memory resources for the entire namespace. This way, the developer can deploy the workload in the namespace, and not risk consuming the full compute capacity of the supervisor cluster. Beyond the resource pool limits, a vAdmin can also set a per container default limit. The namespace will automatically apply a limit to each incoming workload, regardless of the resource configuration specified in the YAML file of the containerized workload. On top of this, the vAdmin can also specify object limits. A maximum number of pods can be specified for the namespace, ultimately limiting the total consumed resources by the workload constructs deployed in the namespace.

Reservations

A Supervisor namespace does not provide the option to set a reservation at the namespace level. However, the resource pool is configured with an expandable reservation and that allows the resource pool to request for unreserved resources from its parent. These unreserved resources are necessary to satisfy the request for reservable resources for a workload. The resource pool “Namespaces” is the parent resource pool where all namespaces are deployed in. The resource pool “Namespaces” is not configured with reserved resources and as a result, it will request unreserved resources from its parent, which is the root resource pool, better known as the cluster object.

A reservation of resources is needed to protect a workload from contention. This can be done via two methods. A vAdmin can set a default reservation per container, or the resource requests must be specified in the resource configuration of the YAML file. If the vAdmin sets a default reservation per container, every container that is deployed in that namespace will be configured with that setting. The developer can specify a request or a limit for each container individually in the workload YAML file. Based on the combination of requests and limits used, Kubernetes automatically assigns a QoS class to the containers inside the pod. And based on Qos classes, reclamation occurs.  There are three Quality of Service (QoS) classes in Kubernetes, BestEffort, Burstable, and Guaranteed.

Both the Burstable and Guaranteed classes consist of a request configuration. With Burstable QoS class, the limit exceeds the number specified by the request. The Guaranteed QoS class requires that the limit and request are set to an identical value. That means that the relative priority of the namespace determines whether BestEffort or the part of the resources of the Burstable workload that is not protected by a request setting will get the resources they require during resource contention. The relative priority is specified by the level of shares assigned to the namespace.

Shares

DRS assigns shares to objects within the cluster to determine the relative priority when there is resource contention. The more shares you own, the higher priority you have on obtaining the resources you desire. It’s an incredibly dynamic (and elegant) method of catering to the needs of the active objects. A VM or resource pool can have all the shares in the world, but if that object is not pushing an active workload, these shares are not directly in play. Typically, to determine the value of shares awarded to an object, we use the worst-case scenario calculation. In such an exercise, we calculate the value of the shares, if each object is 100% active. I.e., the perfect storm. 

DRS assigns each object shares. DRS awards shares based on the configured resources of the object. The number of vCPUs and the amount of memory and then multiplying it with a number of shares. The priority level (low, normal, high) of the object determines the factor of shares. The priority levels have a 1:2:4 ratio. The normal priority is the default priority, and each vCPU gets 1000 CPU shares awarded. For every MB of memory, 10 shares are allocated. For instance, a VM with a 2 vCPU configuration, assigned the normal priority level, receives 2000 shares (2 vCPU x 1000). If the VM is configured with a high priority level, it will receive 4000 shares (2 vCPU x 2000). Although a resource pool cannot run workload by itself, DRS needs to assign shares to this construct to determine relative priority. As such, the internal definition of a resource pool for DRS equals that of a 4 vCPU, 16GB VM. As a result, a normal priority resource pool, regardless of the number of objects it contains, is awarded 4000 CPU shares and 163840 shares of memory.

A namespace is equipped with a resource pool configured with a normal priority level. Any object that is deployed inside the namespace receives a normal priority as well, and this cannot be changed. As described in the “Scheduling vSphere Pods” article, a container is a set of processes and does not contain any hardware-specific sizing configuration. It just lists the number of CPU cycles and the amount of memory it wants to have and that the upper limit of resource consumption should be. vSphere interprets the requests and limits as CPU and memory sizing for the vSphere pod (CRX), and DRS can assign shares based on that configuration. As more containers can be deployed inside a pod, a combination of limits and requests of the containers is used to assign virtual hardware to the vSphere Pod. 

BestEffort workloads do not have any requests and limit set, and as such, a default sizing is used of 1 vCPU and 512MB. From a shares perspective, this means that a vSphere pod running a single container receives 1000 CPU shares and 5120 shares of memory. A Burstable QoS class has a request set or both a request and a limit. If either setting is larger than the default size, that metric is used to determine the size of the container (see image below). If the pod manifest contains multiple containers, the largest parameter of each container is added, and the result is used as a vSphere pod size. For example, a pod includes two containers, each with a request and limit that are greater than the default size of the container. The CPU limit exceeds the quantity of the CPU request. As a result, vSphere uses the sum of both CPU limits and adds a little padding for the components that are responsible for the pod lifecycle, pod configuration, and vSpherelet interaction. A similar calculation is done for memory.

Relative Priority During Sibling Rivalry

Why are these vSphere pod sizes so interesting? DRS in vSphere 7 is equipped with a new feature called Scalable shares and it uses the CPU and memory configurations of the child objects to correctly translate the relative priority of the resource pools with regards of its siblings. The resource pool is the parent of the objects deployed inside. That means that during resource contention, the resource pool will request resources from its parent, the “Namespaces” resource pool, and it will, in turn, request resources from its parent the root resource pool (Supervisor Cluster). At each level, other objects exist doing the same thing during a perfect storm. That means we have to deal with sibling rivalry. 

Within the “Namespaces” RP, a few objects are present. Two namespaces and three control plane VMs. A reservation protects none of the objects, and thus each object has to battle it out with their share value if they want some of the 126.14 GB. Each control plane VM is configured with 24 GBs, owning 245,760 shares. Both RPs own 163,840 of CPU shares. A total of 1,064,960 shares are issued within the “Namespaces” RP, as shown in the UI, each control plane owns 23.08% of the total shares, whereas both resource pools own 15.38%. In a worst-case scenario, that means that the “Namespaces” RP will divide the 126.14 GB between the five objects (siblings). Each control plane node is entitled to consume 23.08% of 126.14 GB = 29.11 GB. Since it cannot allocate more than its configured hardware, it will be able to consume up to 24GB (and its VM overhead) in this situation. The remaining 5 GB will flow back to the resource pool and will be distributed amongst the objects that require it. In this case, all three control planes consume 72 GB (3 x 24 GB), and the 54.14 GB will be distributed amongst the “frank-ns” namespace and “vmware-system-reg…” (which is the harbor) namespace.

The resource requirements of the objects within each namespace can quickly exceed the relative priority of the namespace amongst its siblings. And it is expected that more namespaces will be deployed, further diluting the relative priority amongst its siblings. This behavior is highlighted in the next screenshot. In the meantime, Cormac has been deploying new workloads. He created a namespace for his own vSphere pods. He deployed a TKG cluster and a Cassandra cluster. All deployed in their own namespace.

As you can see, my namespace “frank-ns” is experiencing relative priority dilution. The percentage of shares has been diluted from 15.38% to 10.53%. I can expect that my BestEffort and Burstable deployments will not get the same amount of resources they got before if resource contention occurs. The same applies to the control plane nodes. They are now entitled to 15.79% of the total amount of memory resources. That means that each control plane node can access 19.92 GB (15.79% of 126.14GB).

Design Decision

I would consider applying either a reservation on the control plane nodes or create a resource pool and set a reservation at the RP level. If a reservation is set at the VM object-level it has an impact on admission control and HA restart operations (Are there enough unreserved host resources left after one or multiple host failures in the cluster? 

Reserved Resources

The available amount of unreserved resources in the “Namespaces” RP are diluted when a Guaranteed or Burstable workload is deployed in one of the namespaces. The RPs backing the namespaces are configured as “Expandable” and therefore request these resources from their parent. If the parent has these resources available, it will provide them to the child resource and immediately mark it as reserved. The namespace will own these resources as long as the namespace exists. Once the Guaranteed or Burstable workload is destroyed, the reserved resources flow back to the parent. Reserved resources, when in use, cannot be allocated by other workloads based on their share value.

The interesting to note here is that in this situation, multiple Burstable workloads are deployed inside the namespaces. The Used Reservation of the “Namespaces” RP shows that 36.75GB of resources are reserved. Yet when looking at the table, none of the namespaces or VMs are confirming any reservation. That is because that column shows the reservation that is directly configured on the object itself. And no resource pool that backs a namespace will be configured directly with a reservation. Please note that it will not sum the vSphere pod or VM reservations that are running inside the RP!

The summary view of the namespace shows the capacity and usage of the namespace. In this example, the summary page is shown of the “Cormac-ns”. It shows that the namespace is “consuming” 3.3 GHz and 4.46 GB. 

These numbers are a combination of reservation (request) and actually usage. This can be been seen when each individual pod is inspected. The summary page of the “cassandra-0” pod shows that 1 CPU is allocated and 1 GB is allocated, the pod consumes some memory and some CPU cycles. 

The metadata of the pod shows that this pod has a QoS class of Guaranteed. When viewing the YAML file, we can see that the request and limit of both CPU and Memory resources are identical. Interestingly enough, the CPU resource settings show 500m. The m stands for millicpu. A 1000 millicpu is equal to 1 vCPU, so this YAML file states that this container is fine with consuming half a core. However, vSphere does not have a configuration spec for a virtual CPU of half a core. vSphere can schedule per MHz, but this setting is used to define the CRX (vSphere pod) configuration. And therefore the vSphere pod is configured with the minimum of 1 vCPU and this is listed in the Capacity and Usage view.

Scalable Shares

The reason why this is interesting is that Scalable shares can calculate a new share value based on the number of vCPU of total memory configuration of all the objects inside the resource pool. How this new functionality behaves in an extensive resource pool structure is the topic of the next article.

Previous Articles in this Series

Initial Placement of a vSphere Pod

Scheduling vSphere Pods

The previous article “Initial Placement of a vSphere Pod,” covered the internal construction of a vSphere Pod to show that it is a combination of a tailor-made VM construct and a group of containers. Both the Kubernetes and vSphere platforms contain a rich set of resource management controls, policies, and features that guide, control, or restrict scheduling of workloads. Both control planes use similar types of expressions, creating a (false) sense of unification in the context of managing a vSphere pod. This series of articles examines the overlap of the different control plane dialects, and how the new vSphere 7 platform allows the developer to use Kubernetes native expressions, while the vSphere Admin continues to use the familiar vSphere native resource management functionalities.

Workload Deployment Process

Both control planes implement a similar process to deploy a workload, the workload needs to be scheduled on a resource producer (worker node, or ESXi host), the control plane selects a resource producer based on the criteria presented by the resource consumer (pod manifest / VM configuration). The control plane verifies which resource producer is equipped with enough resource capacity, if there are enough resources available and if it meets the criteria listed in the pod manifest/VM configuration. An instruction is sent over to the workload producer to initiate a power-up process of the workload. 

The difference between the deployment processes of containers and virtual machines is the size aspect. A virtual machine is defined by its virtual hardware and this configuration acts as a boundary for the guest OS and its processes (hence the strong isolation aspect of a virtual machine). A container is a controlled process and uses an abstract OS to control the resource allocation, there is no direct hardware configuration assigned to a process. And this difference introduces a few interesting challenges when you want to run a container natively on a hypervisor. The hypervisor requires workload constructs to define their hardware configuration so it can schedule the workloads and manage resource allocation between active workloads. How do you size a construct that might provide you with absolutely no hints on expected resource usage? You can prescribe an arbitrary hardware configuration, but then you miss out on capturing the intent of the developer if he or she wants the application to be able to burst and temporarily use more resources than it structurally needs. You do not want to create a new resource management paradigm, where developers need to change their current methods of deploying workloads, you want to be able to accept new workloads with the least amount of manual effort. But having these control planes work together is not only a process of solving challenges, it provides the ability to enrich the user experience as well. This article explores the difference in resource scheduler behavior and how Kubernetes resource requests, limits, and QoS policies affect vSphere pod sizing. It starts off by introducing Kubernetes constructs and Kubernetes scheduling to provide enough background information to understand how it can impact vSphere pod sizing and eventually placement of a vSphere pod.

Managing Compute Resources for Containers

In Kubernetes, you can specify how much resources a container can consume (limits) and how many resources the worker node must allocate to a container (request). These are similar to vSphere VM reservations and limits. Similar to vSphere, Kubernetes selects a worker node (Kubernetes term for a host that runs workload), based on the request (reservation) of a container. In vSphere, the atomic unit to assign reservation, shares, and limits is the virtual machine, in Kubernetes, it’s the container. It sounds straight-forward, but there is a bit of a catch.

A container is deployed not directly onto a Kubernetes Worker Node, but it is encapsulated in a higher-level construct called a pod. In short, the reason why a pod exists is that it’s expected to run a single process in a container. If an app exists out of multiple processes, a group of containers should exist, and you do not want to manage a group of processes independently, but the app itself, hence the existence of a pod. What’s the catch? Although you deploy a pod, you have to specify the resource allocation settings per container and not per pod. But since a pod is an atomic unit for scheduling, the requests of all the containers inside the pod are summed, and the result is used for worker node selection. Once the pod is placed, the worker node resource scheduler has to take care of each container request and limits individually. But that is a topic for a future article. Let’s take a closer look at a pod manifest.

Container Size Thinking versus VM Size Thinking

The pod manifest list two containers, each equipped with a request and a limit for both CPU and memory.  A CPU can be expressed in a few different ways. 1 equals to 1 CPU, which is the same as a hyperthread of an Intel processor. If that seems lavishly outlandish, you can actually use a smaller unit of expression by using millicpu or decimals. That means that 0.5 means half of a hyperthread or 500 millicpu. For a seasoned vSphere admin, you are now exploring the other end of the spectrum, instead of dealing with users who are demanding 64 Cores, we are now trying to split atoms here. With memory, you can express memory requirements in plain integers (126754378954) or fixed-point integers using suffixes 64MiB (2²⁶ bytes). Kubernetes.Io documentation can help you with which fixed-point integer exists. In this example, the pod request is 128 Mi of memory and 500m of CPU resources.

Kubernetes Scheduling

During the process of initial placement of the container, the scheduler needs to check the “compatibility” first. After the Kubernetes scheduler has considered the taints and tolerations, the pod affinity and anti-affinity, and the node affinity, it looks at the node capacity to understand if it can satisfy the pod requests (128Mi and 500m CPU). To be more precise, it inspects the “node allocatable.” This is the number of resources that is available for pods to consume. Kubernetes reserves some resources of the node to make sure system daemons and itself can run without risking resource starvation. The node allocatable resources are divided into two parts, allocated and unallocated. The total of allocated resources is the sum of all request configurations of all active containers on the worker node. As a result, Kubernetes matches the request stated in the pod manifest and the unallocated resources listed by each worker node in the cluster. The node with the most unallocated resources is selected to run the pod. To be clear, Kubernetes’ initial placement does not consider actual resource usage.

As depicted in the diagram, the workload needs to be scheduled. The Kubernetes control plane reviews the individual worker nodes, filters the nodes out which node can fit the pods, and then selects the node based on the configured prioritization function. The most used function is the “LeastRequestedPriority” option, which favors worker nodes with fewer requested resources. As node B has the least amount of reserved resources, the scheduler deems this node to be the best candidate to run the workload.

vSphere Scheduling

DRS has a more extensive resource scheduling model. The method used by Kubernetes is more or less in-line with the vSphere admission control model. Kubernetes scheduling contains more nuances and features than I just described in the paragraphs above. It checks if a node is reporting memory pressure, allowing it to exclude from the node selection list (CheckNodeMemoryPressure), and a priority functionality is in beta, but overall looking at reserved and unreserved memory can be considered to be a little bit coarse. vSphere has three admission controls that all work together to ensure continuity and resource availability.  DRS resource scheduling aligns the host resource availability, with the resource entitlement of the workload. Reservations, shares, limits, and actual resource usage of a workload is used to determine the appropriate host. Now you might want to argue that a workload that needs to be placed does not use any resources yet, so how does this work?

During initial placement, DRS considers the configured size as resource entitlement, in this case the resource entitlement is a worst-case scenario. So a VM with a hardware configuration of 4 vCPUs and 16 GB has a resource entitlement before power-up of 4 vCPUs and 16GB plus some overhead for running the VM (VM overhead). However, if a reservation is set of 8GB, then the resource entitlement is now switched to a minimum resource entitlement of 4 vCPU, 8GB+VM overhead. A host must have at least have 8GB(+VM overhead ) of unreserved resources available to be considered. How is this different from Kubernetes? Well, this part isn’t. The key is taking the future state of a workload into consideration. DRS understands the actual resource usage (and the entitlement) of all other active workloads running on the different hosts. And thus, it has an accurate view of the ability (and possibility) of the workload to perform on each host. Entitlement indicates the number of resources the workload has the right to consume; as such, it also functions as a form of prediction, an estimation on workload pressure. Would you rather place a new workload on a crowded host or on one that is less busy?

In this example, there are three hosts, each with 100 GB of memory capacity. Host A has workload active that has reserved 60 GBs of memory. 40 GB of memory is unreserved. Host B and host C have workload active that have reserved 40 GBs of memory. 60GBs of memory is unreserved. A new workload with a 35 GB reservation comes in. The Kubernetes scheduler would have considered both hosts to be equally good. However, DRS is aware of active use. Host B has an active resource consumption of 70 GB, while host C has an active use of 45 GBs. As host B resource usage is closer to its capacity, DRS selects host C as the destination host for initial placement.

Considering active resource usage of other active resource consumers, whether they are VM constructs or containers in vSphere pods, creates a platform that is more capable of satisfying intent. If a pod is configured with a burstable Quality of Service class (limit exceeds request), the developer declares the intent that the workload should be able to consume more resources if available. With initial placement enriched with active host resource usage, the probability of having that capability is highly increased. 

Managing Compute Resources for vSphere Pods

Seeing that a vSphere pod is a combination of containers and a VM construct, both control planes interact with the different components of the vSphere pod. But some of the qualities of the different constructs impact the other constructs’ behavior, for example, sizing. A VM is a construct defined by its hardware configuration. In essence, a VM is virtualized hardware, and the scheduler needs to understand the boundaries of the VM to place and schedule it properly. This configuration acts as a boundary of the world where the guest OS lives in. A guest OS cannot see beyond the borders of a VM, and therefore it acts and optimizes for the world it lives in. It has no concept of “outer-space”. A container is the opposite of this. A container is, contrary to its definition, not a rigid or a solid structure. It’s a group of processes that are contained by features to isolate or “contain” resource usage (control groups). Compare this to a process or an application on a Windows machine. When you start or configure an application, you are not defining how many CPUs or memory that particular app can consume. You hope it doesn’t behave like Galactus (better known as Google Chrome) and that it just won’t eat up all your resources. That means that a process in Windows can see all the resources the host (i.e., laptop or virtual machine) contains. The same applies to Linux containers. A container can see all the resources that are available to its host; the limit setting restricts it to consume above this boundary. And that means that if no limit is set, the container should be able to consume as much as the worker node can provide. I.e., in VM-sizing terms, the size of the container is equal to the size worker node. If this container was to run inside a vSphere pod, the vSphere pod should have the size of the ESXi host. Although we all love our monster-VMs, we shouldn’t be doing this. Especially when most expressions of container resource management borders on splitting atoms, and are not intended to introduce planet-sized container entities in the data center.

Kubernetes QoS Classes and the impact of vSphere Pod Sizing

A very interesting behavior of Kubernetes is the implicit definition of Quality of Service (QoS) classes due to combinations of limits and requests definition in the pod manifest. As seen in the introduction of this article, a pod manifest contains limits and requests definitions of each container. However, these specifications are entirely optional. Based on the combination used, Kubernetes automatically assigns a QoS class to the containers inside the pod. And based on Qos classes, reclamation occurs. A developer well versed in the Kubernetes dialect understands this behavior and configures the pod manifest accordingly. Let’s take a look at the three QoS classes to understand a developers’ intent better. 

Three Qos Classes exist BestEffort class, Burstable class, and Guaranteed class. If no requests and limits are set on all containers in the pod manifest, the BestEffort class is assigned to that pod. That means all containers in that pod can allocate as many resources as they want, but they are also the first containers to be evicted if resource pressure occurs. If all containers in the pod manifest contain both a memory and CPU requests and the request equals the limit, then Kubernetes assigns the Guaranteed QoS class to the Pod. Guaranteed pods are the last candidates to be hit if resource contention occurs. Every other thinkable combination of CPU and memory requests and limits ensures that Kubernetes assigns the Burstable class. It is important not to disrupt the expected behavior of resource allocation and reclamation and as a result, the requests and limits used in the pod manifest are used as guidance for vSphere Pod sizing while keeping the expected reclamation behavior of the various combinations. 

If there is no limit set on a container, how must vSphere interpret this when sizing the vSphere pod? To prevent host-sized vSphere pods, a default container size is introduced. It’s on a per-container basis. To be exact, if a simplest pod with one container and no request/limit settings is created, that vSphere Pod will get 1 vCPU and 512 MB. It actually gets 0.5 cores by default, but if there is only one container we will round the vCPU up to 1. Why not on a pod basis? Simply because of scalability reasons, the size of the Pod scales up with the number of BestEffort containers inside. If a request or a limit is set, that is larger than the default size, than this metric is used to determine the size of the container. If the pod manifest contains multiple containers, the largest metric of each container is added and the result is used as a vSphere pod size. For example, a pod contains two containers, each with a request and limit that are greater than the default size of the container. The CPU limit exceeds the size of the CPU request, as a result, vSphere uses the sum of both CPU limits, and adds a little padding for the components that are responsible for the pod lifecycle, pod configuration, and vSpherelet interaction. A similar calculation is done for memory.

Initial Placement of Containers Inside a vSphere Pod on vSphere with Kubernetes

When a developer pushes a pod manifest to the Kubernetes control plane, the Kube-Scheduler is required to find an appropriate worker node. In the Kubernetes dialect, the worker-node that meets the resource allocation requirements of the pod is called a feasible node. In order to determine which nodes are feasible, Kube-Scheduler will filter the nodes that do not have enough unallocated resources that are required to satisfy the listed requests in the pod manifest. The second step in the process done by the Kube-Scheduler is to score each feasible node in the list based on additional requirements, such as affinity and labels. The ranked list is sent over to the Pacific Scheduler Extension which in turn sends it over to the vSphere API server, who forwards it to the vSphere DRS service. DRS determines which host aligns best with the resource requirements and is the most suitable candidate to ensure that the vSphere pod reaches the highest happiness score (getting the resources the vSphere pod is entitled to). The vSphere Pod LifeCycle Controller ensures that the Spherelet on the selected host creates the pod and injects the Photon Linux Kernel into the vSphere pod. The Spherelet starts the container. (See Initial Placement of a vSphere Pod for a more detailed diagram of the creation process of a vSphere Pod).

Please note that if the developer specifies a limit that exceeds the host capabilities than the configuration is created, however, the vSphere pod fails to deploy.

Resource Reclamation

In addition to sizing the vSphere pod, vSphere uses the resources requests listed in the pod manifest to apply vSphere resource allocation settings to guarantee the requested resources are available. There can be a gap between the set reservation and the size of the vSphere pod. Similar to VM behavior, these resources are available as long as there is no resource contention. When resource contention occurs, the reclamation of resources is initiated. In the case of a vSphere pod, vSphere broad spectrum of consolidation techniques are used, but when it comes to the eviction of a pod, vSphere lets Kubernetes do the dirty work. In all seriousness, this is due to internal Kubernetes event management and a more granular view of resource usage.

Namespaces

In Kubernetes, a higher-level construct is available to guide and control its member pods, this construct is called the namespace. vSphere 7 with Kubernetes provides a similar construct at the vSphere level, the supervisor namespace. A vSphere resource pool is used to manage the compute resources of the supervisor namespace. The namespace can be configured with an optional limit range that defines a default request or limit on containers, influencing vSphere pod sizes and reclamation behavior. The supervisor namespaces is a vast topic and therefore more info about Namespace will appear in the next article in this series.

Previous articles in this series

Part 1: Initial Placement of a vSphere Pod