Skip to content
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

Multiple apiservers fighting over endpoint #18535

Closed
philk opened this issue Dec 10, 2015 · 5 comments
Closed

Multiple apiservers fighting over endpoint #18535

philk opened this issue Dec 10, 2015 · 5 comments
Assignees
Labels
area/HA priority/backlog Higher priority than priority/awaiting-more-evidence.

Comments

@philk
Copy link

philk commented Dec 10, 2015

I've done a bunch of searching for an answer to this but don't see a real solution. If you're running with the currently recommended solution for multiple api servers they continuously update the kubernetes service endpoint. This doesn't really cause any problems until you try to use the Ingress resource since the endpoint modification causes the ingress controller (at least the haproxy one, I don't see any reason why the same wouldn't be true of any other) to continuously restart.

It also spams the kube-proxy logs with:

kube-proxy[1580]: I1210 21:44:08.572592    1580 proxier.go:352] Setting endpoints for "default/kubernetes:" to [10.0.167.163:443]

every couple seconds.

It looks like #8649 is the latest attempted fix, however (at least on AWS) there's no address to advertise since ELBs aren't static IPs. #6672 references #6995 but neither of those end up in real solutions. #7273 looks like it was exactly what I'm looking for but then #7704 seems to have removed it without any explanation that I saw.

This is all a really long winded way to say, what's the real recommended way to run multiple API servers?

@j3ffml
Copy link
Contributor

j3ffml commented Dec 13, 2015

cc @mikedanese

@mikedanese
Copy link
Member

This would be fixed by setting master count to the number of apiservers. Currently it's always set to one. @lavalamp should we expose that as a command line flag or were you waiting for a better way to derive that number?

@mikedanese
Copy link
Member

#18628 will fix this. We can come up with a fancy way to derive that number later and deprecate that configuration.

@davidopp davidopp added the priority/backlog Higher priority than priority/awaiting-more-evidence. label Dec 13, 2015
@lavalamp
Copy link
Member

lavalamp commented Jan 4, 2016

@mikedanese Just to confirm, yes, exposing it as a flag is the right thing. Thanks.

@mikedanese
Copy link
Member

No. This will be in v1.2

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
area/HA priority/backlog Higher priority than priority/awaiting-more-evidence.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants