-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.4k
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
KEP-1672: promote EndpointSliceTerminatingCondition feature to GA #3504
Conversation
@@ -20,17 +20,18 @@ see-also: | |||
replaces: [] | |||
|
|||
# The target maturity stage in the current dev cycle for this KEP. | |||
stage: beta | |||
stage: stable |
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.
There's no diff in the actual KEP since it already includes the graudation criteria for GA:
#### GA
* E2E tests validating that terminating pods are properly reflected in EndpointSlice API.
* Ensure there are no performance/scalability regressions when enabling additional endpointslice writes for terminating endpoints.
* This will be validated by running the existing scalability test suites where pods handle SIGTERM from kubelet before terminating.
* All necessary metrics are in place to provide adequate observability and monitoring for this feature.
@@ -3,3 +3,5 @@ alpha: | |||
approver: "@wojtek-t" | |||
beta: | |||
approver: "@wojtek-t" | |||
stable: | |||
approver: "@wojtek-t" |
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.
@wojtek-t @marseel looking for a sign off here.
A few months back, myself and @marseel ran the Kubernetes performance tests to validate that this change did not regress performance significantly. IIRC, the tests included these two changes:
- update sleep image to optionally handle SIGTERM perf-tests#1986
- Update sleep image to 0.0.2 perf-tests#1987
I don't think we saw any noticeable regression in performance, but please correct me if I'm mis-remebering.
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, you are correct, we haven't seen noticeable regression.
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.
Yup - I remember that and I'm fine with this from scalability POV.
Some other comment below though :)
/hold We may want to consider promoting this to GA along with KEP-1669 (Beta promotion in #3505). Holding until we have agreement on whether we should promote these in lock-step or separately. |
/lgtm |
Thanks @marseel /hold cancel |
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.
I'm fine with this modulo the upgrade testing question that should have been updated before promoting to beta :)
@@ -3,3 +3,5 @@ alpha: | |||
approver: "@wojtek-t" | |||
beta: | |||
approver: "@wojtek-t" | |||
stable: | |||
approver: "@wojtek-t" |
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.
Yup - I remember that and I'm fine with this from scalability POV.
Some other comment below though :)
|
||
# The milestone at which this feature was, or is targeted to be, at each stage. | ||
milestone: | ||
alpha: "v1.20" | ||
beta: "v1.22" | ||
stable: "v1.26" |
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.
Comment regarding PRR in the KEP;
Not yet, but manual upgrade and rollback testing will be done prior to graduating the feature to Beta.
Have those been done? Can you please summarize the setup in which it was done and findings?
If not - can you please do that now?
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.
Thanks, I added a new section for manual steps taken for testing rollback. Let me know if they are sufficient.
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 - this looks great - thanks!
Signed-off-by: Andrew Sy Kim <andrewsy@google.com>
a398b80
to
08fa9b8
Compare
08fa9b8
to
55100d2
Compare
Signed-off-by: Andrew Sy Kim <andrewsy@google.com>
55100d2
to
4d9dfe2
Compare
/lgtm @andrewsykim - I'm holding this to ensure that you will add it to the tracking board: |
/hold cancel @thockin - for SIG-level approval |
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.
How are we doing on documenting the new behavior?
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.
From SIG side:
/lgtm
/approve
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: andrewsykim, thockin, wojtek-t 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 |
@sftim documentation was added here: kubernetes/website#25229, let me know if you think it needs more |
Signed-off-by: Andrew Sy Kim andrewsy@google.com
Promote EndpointSliceTerminatingCondition feature gate to GA in v1.26. This feature has been Beta since v1.22 and was pending validation from sig-scalability on the performance implications of this change.