Skip to content

[Feature] REP 54: Re-define rayv1.Ready #2238

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

Closed
2 tasks done
rueian opened this issue Jul 11, 2024 · 3 comments
Closed
2 tasks done

[Feature] REP 54: Re-define rayv1.Ready #2238

rueian opened this issue Jul 11, 2024 · 3 comments
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@rueian
Copy link
Contributor

rueian commented Jul 11, 2024

Search before asking

  • I had searched in the issues and found no similar feature requirement.

Description

This is one of the tracking items of the REP: RayCluster status improvement, the step 6 in the design doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bRL0cZa87eCX6SI7gqthN68CgmHaB6l3-vJuIse-BrY

Currently, once the .Status.State has been set to rayv1.Ready, it keeps rayv1.Ready even when the Head pod is gone.

Here, as stated in the design doc, we redefine ready as follows:

  • When all Pods in the RayCluster are running for the first time, the RayCluster CR’s Status.State will transition to ready.
  • After the RayCluster CR transitions to ready, KubeRay only checks whether the Ray head Pod is ready to determine if the RayCluster is ready.

This new definition is effective only when the RayClusterStatusConditions feature gate is enabled to maintain backward compatibility.

Use case

No response

Related issues

ray-project/enhancements#54
#2219

Are you willing to submit a PR?

  • Yes I am willing to submit a PR!
@rueian
Copy link
Contributor Author

rueian commented Jul 12, 2024

Hi @Yicheng-Lu-llll, would you like to take on this?

@Yicheng-Lu-llll
Copy link
Contributor

sure!

@kevin85421
Copy link
Member

Closed by #2271

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants