This repository has been archived by the owner on Feb 22, 2022. It is now read-only.
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 16.9k
[stable/concourse] Upgrade to concourse 3.8.0 #3203
Merged
+46
−32
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is there a condition where retire-worker will never come back good and this will be stuck in the loop?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, I've seen this happen where ATC can't/won't clean up the worker as a result of calling
retire-worker
. On termination the terminationGracePeriod will take affect and the container will be killed. When it comes back it could get stuck in this loop. The pod will be live, but the worker won't register because the worker process hasn't started yet, it's still trying to retire-worker because the old worker still exists in concourse.The only resolution is to manually intervene in the fly cli with
fly prune-worker
. I've requested that theconcourse
command add the option to forcefully delete: concourse/concourse#1457 (comment), which would be called in the startup script instead of looping overretire-worker
.This deserves a paragraph in the readme, but I'm not sure if we can make this any better at the moment, unless we can find another way to send that delete request.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actually, there is a way to make this better, have the liveness probe
ensure the concourse process is up in addition to checking for fatal errors, and have the livenessProbeDelay tuneable.fail if we're still trying to retire the worker at startup after the livenessProbeDelaySeconds has passed. This will trigger a crashloopbackoff that should be obvious enough to signal manual intervention.