You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
There is another node label operator by redhat (https://github.com/openshift-kni/node-label-operator) which supports node name patterns (regex) for labeling, however it doesn't support taints. We need to taint and label nodes based on their name, e.g:
node-infra-0
node-infra-1
It would be really nice if we could have a selector with regex match, like a mixture of these operators to have Labeler objects such as:
Which selects all nodes which match nodeSelectorTerms AND then filters the ones which match one of nodeNamePatterns, and only apply the labels and taints to those.
Another more general method is to have this regex matching for labels, with introducing a new seletor operator such as key: "kubernetes.io/host", operator: "match", values: ["somepattern.*"]
however as it violates the standard of matchExpressions of k8s, I think this latter method is not good, and the first one is more clear.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
There is another node label operator by redhat (https://github.com/openshift-kni/node-label-operator) which supports node name patterns (regex) for labeling, however it doesn't support taints. We need to taint and label nodes based on their name, e.g:
It would be really nice if we could have a selector with regex match, like a mixture of these operators to have Labeler objects such as:
Which selects all nodes which match
nodeSelectorTerms
AND then filters the ones which match one ofnodeNamePatterns
, and only apply the labels and taints to those.Another more general method is to have this regex matching for labels, with introducing a new seletor operator such as
key: "kubernetes.io/host", operator: "match", values: ["somepattern.*"]
however as it violates the standard of matchExpressions of k8s, I think this latter method is not good, and the first one is more clear.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: