github/kubernetes
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/k3s-io/kubernetes.git synced 2025-07-30 06:54:01 +00:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Merge pull request #4049 from chrishiestand/patch-1

Browse Source 
minor typo/spelling correction
This commit is contained in:
Tim Hockin 2015-02-03 07:56:25 -08:00
commit 1469f69235
1 changed files with 1 additions and 1 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

2
docs/replication-controller.md
View File

@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ A replication controller creates new pods from a template, which is currently in
Rather than specifying the current desired state of all replicas, pod templates are like cookie cutters. Once a cookie has been cut, the cookie has no relationship to the cutter. There is no quantum entanglement. Subsequent changes to the template or even switching to a new template has no direct effect on the pods already created. Similarly, pods created by a replication controller may subsequently be updated directly. This is in deliberate contrast to pods, which do specify the current desired state of all containers belonging to the pod. This approach radically simplifies system semantics and increases the flexibility of the primitive, as demonstrated by the use cases explained below.
Pods created by a replication controller are intended to be fungible and semantically identical, though their configurations may become heterogeneous over time. This is an obvious fit for replicated stateless servers, but replication controllers can also be used to maintain availability of master-elected, sharded, and worker-pool applications. Such applications should use dynamic work assignment mechanisms, such as the [etcd lock module](https://coreos.com/docs/distributed-configuration/etcd-modules/) or [RabbitMQ work queues](https://www.rabbitmq.com/tutorials/tutorial-two-python.html), as opposed to static/one-time customization of the configuration of each pod, which is considerined an anti-pattern. Any pod customization performed, such as vertical auto-sizing of resources (e.g., cpu or memory), should be performed by another online controller process, not unlike the replication controller itself.
Pods created by a replication controller are intended to be fungible and semantically identical, though their configurations may become heterogeneous over time. This is an obvious fit for replicated stateless servers, but replication controllers can also be used to maintain availability of master-elected, sharded, and worker-pool applications. Such applications should use dynamic work assignment mechanisms, such as the [etcd lock module](https://coreos.com/docs/distributed-configuration/etcd-modules/) or [RabbitMQ work queues](https://www.rabbitmq.com/tutorials/tutorial-two-python.html), as opposed to static/one-time customization of the configuration of each pod, which is considered an anti-pattern. Any pod customization performed, such as vertical auto-sizing of resources (e.g., cpu or memory), should be performed by another online controller process, not unlike the replication controller itself.
### Labels