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

fix mysql version in docker image #1594

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 2, 2021
Merged

fix mysql version in docker image #1594

merged 1 commit into from
Aug 2, 2021

Conversation

munagekar
Copy link
Contributor

What this PR does / why we need it:

  • This PR fixes the mysql version to a constant tag.

The current image mysql:8 is mutable tag. Every time an update is made this points to a new version. I.e it could point to 8.0.1 or 8.0.2 or 8.0.26. SQL upgrades are one-way it is not possible to downgrade.

This leads to errors if the image is already cached on kubernetes node. For example node already has 8.0.2 image cached, but 8.0.26 on was used on another node.

[InnoDB] Cannot boot server version 80017 on data directory built by version 80018. Downgrade is not supported

Another possible alternative would be to set image pull policy to Always.

imagePullPolicy: Always

@aws-kf-ci-bot
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @munagekar. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubeflow member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

Copy link
Member

@andreyvelich andreyvelich left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you for updating this @munagekar!
I think it's very good point, we should keep the particular version for mysql.
/ok-to-test
What do you think @gaocegege @johnugeorge ?

@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ spec:
spec:
containers:
- name: katib-mysql
image: mysql:8
image: mysql:8.0.26
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can we also add imagePullPolicy: Always here to avoid problems with caching data if users are running another mysql instance for other components ?
I remember that we had couple of problems with that.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@munagekar munagekar Jul 30, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

imagePullPolicy: Always is not required as long mysql:8.0.26 tag image is not updated in dockerhub, and cache can be used if available.

However, I don't have any strong opinion, I can add it if you feel so.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do we have any use-case when mysql team can update previous image tag on the dockerhub ?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looking at release history & dockerhub Mysql Team hasn't done it. I think it should be fine without imagePullPolicy:"Always"

A possible usecase would be when Dockerimages such as ubuntu are rebuilt and pushed again to dockerhub when there are security fixes. Mysql doesn't seem to do so either.

Even if there were to be a security fix with mysql docker image. The mysql version would remain the same and this issue would not occur.

[InnoDB] Cannot boot server version 80017 on data directory built by version 80018. Downgrade is not supported

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you for the explanation @munagekar!

@gaocegege
Copy link
Member

/retest

Thanks for your contribution! 🎉 👍

LGTM 👍
/lgtm

Copy link
Member

@andreyvelich andreyvelich left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

/lgtm
/approve

@google-oss-robot
Copy link

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: andreyvelich, munagekar

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@google-oss-robot google-oss-robot merged commit 1b71a7c into kubeflow:master Aug 2, 2021
haoxins added a commit to argoflow/argoflow-gcp that referenced this pull request Mar 3, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants