Is there a way to make Flyte use nodeAffinity instead of nodeSelector for spot nodes (when

interruptible=True

)? And if not, is this something that would be considered? My justification is this - currently with nodeSelector, it can easily make a task unschedulable, for example we do not run GPUs on Spot nodes so a GPU task with

interruptible=True

will never be schedulable. By using nodeAffinity instead of nodeSelector, this behaviour can be configured by the user with either

requiredDuringSchedulingIgnoredDuringExecution

or

preferredDuringSchedulingIgnoredDuringExecution

We wound up adding a layer of indirection between our Flyte workloads & scheduling with Kyverno (specifically mutate rules). The idea is you tag your workloads w/ a well-known annotation and then the policy can apply an arbitrary transformation on the pod spec if the annotation matches (we use this right now to have a level of indirection between model pipeline developers and decisions around what types of nodes we schedule on, on-demand vs spot, etc) It's certainly possible to use this to manage

nodeAffinity

as well.

Ah this is a good idea! We’re already using kyverno actually, but using mutations for this hadn’t crossed my mind!

Cool! Feel free to hit me up with questions, we're using kyverno for this sort of indirection between workloads and cloud provider/autoscaler implementation details pretty extensively

@elegant-australia-91422 Sorry for resurrecting this old thread, what kind of fields were you managed to use kyverno to mutate? We're getting a lot this in flytepropeller: "error syncing Forbidden: pod updates may not change fields other than

spec.containers[*].image

,

spec.initContainers[*].image

,

spec.activeDeadlineSeconds

, `spec.tolerations`" .

So, just last week I had to rip out the kyverno pieces exactly due to this finalizer issue.

shucks thanks

I switched to creating higher-order decorators that then resolved to a specific

PodTemplate

- so we still have the separation of concerns between pipeline authors and lower-level infra details / they're separated by codeowners in our monorepo, but unfortunately we couldn't fully handle this on the cluster side