I am not sure which is better between CoreDNS DaemonSet vs CoreDNS and nodelocaldns configuration in terms of advantages.

Running CoreDNS as a daemonset isn't a use case we currently support in this chart. If you're looking for DNS caching or performance gains, nodelocaldns + CoreDNS is a better approach (see the docs)

@hagaibarel can you please elaborate why nodelocaldns + CoreDNS is a better approach?
It is a much more complicated solution -
nodelocaldns + CoreDNS + DNS autoscaler
vs
CoreDNS daemonset

Nodelocal DNS instances are lighter weight and less resource intensive because they don't maintain a k8s API connection.
In a CoreDNS Daemonset deployment, every instance maintains a k8s API connection, which takes up more memory and adds more load to the k8s API per instance.

@chrisohaver looking at our production coredns pods (with DNS autoscaling), the memory footprint of each is on average 20MB which is pretty insignificant.
What's the measured load on the k8s API server with a daemonset? kube-proxy and CNI plugin daemonsets maintain a k8s API connection and there are no issues there.

@chrisohaver @hagaibarel can we reopen the issue?
I still can not see a convincing argument to use an overly complex nodelocal dns setup.

Hi @dudicoco,

I have yet to see a compelling argument why we should support this model in this chart. My initial arguments are still valid IMO:

• Upstream CoreDNS isn't suitable to be used as-is as NodeLocal DNS. While it's true that NodeLocalDNS is based on CoreDNS it's always with some adaptations or modifications.
• This is out of scope for this chart and the intended purposes.

Given that, I don't see a reason to reopen this issue

There's an ongoing discussion in the upstream in an issue that i've opened: kubernetes/dns#594

Once conclusions were made there i'll update this issue with the information.

From the requested rejected MR:

A daemonset doesn't support rolling upgrades and as such could lead to service disruptions

This is now supported and works great: https://kubernetes.io/docs/tasks/manage-daemon/update-daemon-set/

spec:
  updateStrategy:
    type: RollingUpdate
    rollingUpdate:
      maxSurge: 1
      maxUnavailable: 0

Furthermore internalTrafficPolicy: Local is also now available.

This makes it much simpler to deploy CoreDNS as a DS. For me the benefits are:

• no iptables/kube-proxy interaction/requirement
• no duplicate coredns config full of __PILLAR__ variables

I'd like to open the ticket. The use case is very simple:

• like a devops I want to deploy the coredns to control plane (in case of bare metal)
• now I am forced to use other solutions
• or use Deployment with anti affinity and topology spread. Also I need to change replica number manually.

So I would be happy to have daemonset which will scale up/down according to control plane nodes count. And schedule coredns only to them (by nodeselector).

@vaskozl thanks for the clarification, totally agree. I think we need to elaborate on the issue and re-open it. I think that the PR would be almost trivial. And yes - for the reverse compatibility - there will be a flag mode which controls the deployment type and by default it would be deployment

any progress on this matter?

This has been discussed in the past and rejected, we don't currently have intention to support a daemonset model for this chart. For those looking into running node local dns, please check the offcical docs - https://kubernetes.io/docs/tasks/administer-cluster/nodelocaldns/