ced4568andClaude Sonnet 5
60fbf0c385
Pre-Phase-1 platform work, approved and tested earlier but not yet committed: - Terminal banner: "RootNode Academy Lab — node: k8s-lab", upstream KubeKosh attribution left untouched in footer/README/LICENSE. - RootNode curriculum mode: scenarios/rootnode-path.json (Foundation -> Workloads -> Networking -> Configuration -> Troubleshooting -> Real Ops -> Capstone), built from existing scenario content grouped by category, no new scenarios invented. New GET /api/curriculum/path endpoint. - Student roster + per-student progress: instructor-roster, pick-your-name login (no password), students/environments-adjacent progress table migrated to a (student_id, scenario_id) composite key so practice progress and exam sessions are isolated per student instead of one global bucket. New /api/roster, /api/login endpoints. - scenarios/data/*.json: added isolation_type metadata (shared_namespace vs ephemeral_cluster) from an audit of which scenarios execute cluster-scoped or node-level commands. This was Tier-1-isolation groundwork that got superseded same-day by the full-ephemeral-per-student architecture (see docs/LAB_ARCHITECTURE.md) — the field is kept as descriptive metadata only, per the note now in scenarios/SCHEMA.md. Not wasted: it's an accurate audit of which scenarios touch cluster-scoped resources, useful independent of isolation model. - .gitignore added (node_modules/, frontend/dist/, *.db, /data/, .env) — none existed before; without it, npm installs during testing would have landed in a commit. Known limitation still open: no frontend UI for any of this yet (login screen, roster-add form, curriculum view) — API-only. No auth on the roster-add endpoint. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <[email protected]>
41 lines
1.9 KiB
JSON
41 lines
1.9 KiB
JSON
{
|
|
"id": "pod-affinity-mcq",
|
|
"title": "Pod Affinity vs Anti-Affinity",
|
|
"category": "Workloads & Scheduling",
|
|
"isolation_type": "shared_namespace",
|
|
"difficulty": "Medium",
|
|
"type": "mcq",
|
|
"weight": 4,
|
|
"description": "## Pod Affinity vs Anti-Affinity\n\nYou want to ensure that **cache** pods are always scheduled on the **same node** as the **app** pods they serve (to reduce latency). Which scheduling rule should you use in the cache pod spec?",
|
|
"options": [
|
|
{
|
|
"id": "a",
|
|
"text": "`spec.affinity.podAntiAffinity` with `requiredDuringSchedulingIgnoredDuringExecution` matching `app=app-pod`"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": "b",
|
|
"text": "`spec.affinity.podAffinity` with `requiredDuringSchedulingIgnoredDuringExecution` matching `app=app-pod`"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": "c",
|
|
"text": "`spec.affinity.nodeAffinity` with a `matchExpressions` for the app pod's node label"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": "d",
|
|
"text": "`spec.tolerations` with `key=app-pod` and `effect=NoSchedule`"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"correct_option": "b",
|
|
"explanation": "**Pod Affinity** (`spec.affinity.podAffinity`) attracts pods to nodes where matching pods are already running. Use `requiredDuringSchedulingIgnoredDuringExecution` for a hard constraint (cache pod MUST co-locate with app pod) vs `preferredDuringSchedulingIgnoredDuringExecution` for a soft preference. **Pod Anti-Affinity** does the opposite — spreads pods apart. Tolerations are unrelated to co-location and work with taints.",
|
|
"hints": [
|
|
{
|
|
"title": "Affinity types",
|
|
"body": "podAffinity = attract to same node. podAntiAffinity = repel from same node. nodeAffinity = attract to nodes with specific labels. The `topologyKey: kubernetes.io/hostname` means 'same node'.",
|
|
"command": "kubectl explain pod.spec.affinity.podAffinity"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"setup_commands": [],
|
|
"default_namespace": "default",
|
|
"teardown_commands": []
|
|
}
|