Enable volume limit feature by default #69225

gnufied · 2018-09-28T17:14:12Z

Also add more tests for it.

/sig storage

Enable AttachVolumeLimit feature

ddebroy · 2018-09-28T18:33:59Z

pkg/volume/csi/nodeinfomanager/nodeinfomanager_test.go

+			attachKey := v1.ResourceName(util.GetCSIAttachLimitKey(tc.driverName))
+			attachLimit := volumeLimits[attachKey]
+			if attachLimit != tc.expectedVolumeLimit {
+				t.Errorf("expected volume limit to be %d got %d", tc.inputVolumeLimit, attachLimit)


The log message is incorrect - expected volume limit is tc.expectedVolumeLimit not tc.inputVolumeLimit

good catch.

msau42 · 2018-09-28T22:57:22Z

Can we also add an e2e test? I don't know if this is something that unit tests would have caught.

verult · 2018-09-29T04:53:39Z

pkg/volume/csi/nodeinfomanager/nodeinfomanager_test.go

+			existingNode: generateNode(
+				nil, /*nodeIDs*/
+				nil, /*labels*/
+				map[v1.ResourceName]resource.Quantity{


Could you add a testcase for deletion against a node that previously doesn't contain attach limit info?

Now that we run the test in all cases, I think this should be covered by that

verult · 2018-09-29T04:54:29Z

pkg/volume/csi/nodeinfomanager/nodeinfomanager_test.go

 			inputNodeID:  "",
 			expectFail:   true,
 		},
+		{


Could you add a test case with pre-existing attach limit on the node?

verult · 2018-09-29T05:09:30Z

pkg/volume/csi/nodeinfomanager/nodeinfomanager_test.go

@@ -627,6 +658,17 @@ func test(t *testing.T, addNodeInfo bool, csiNodeInfoEnabled bool, testcases []t
 			continue
 		}

+		// We are testing max volume limits
+		if tc.inputVolumeLimit > 0 {


nit: Is it possible to have the logic below run for every test case, and have getVolumeLimits() return 0 if the attachKey doesn't exist? IMO, intuitively setting inputVolumeLimit in a test case means this value is passed into the method being tested as an input, whereas RemoveInfo doesn't depend on that param.

neolit123 · 2018-09-30T05:17:40Z

thanks for addressing!
/kind bug

Also add tests for it.

gnufied · 2018-10-01T18:40:59Z

@msau42 @verult fixed. Also added a small e2e to make sure node has limits. PTAL

msau42 · 2018-10-01T18:43:28Z

test/e2e/storage/volume_limits.go

+		if len(nodeList.Items) == 0 {
+			framework.Failf("Unable to find ready and schedulable Node")
+		}
+		node := nodeList.Items[0]


test description says that it checks all nodes, but we're only checking one.

should the test check all nodes?

msau42 · 2018-10-01T18:45:15Z

test/e2e/storage/volume_limits.go

+		volumeLimits := getVolumeLimit(&node)
+		if len(volumeLimits) == 0 {
+			framework.Failf("Expected volume limits to be set")
+		}


can we also launch a pod that uses the entire volume limit? You could potentially reuse this test case and just set a different numVolumes: https://sourcegraph.com/github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/-/blob/test/e2e/storage/persistent_volumes.go#L319

We could but for gce - it appears that the limit on the selected node starts at 64. So, we will have to create a pod with 64+ volumes

64 1gi volumes should be within our quota...

okay, I think that will also make this test serial because no other workload(guess just with volumes but we don't have that level of granularity) can be scheduled on the node while this test runs on it. I can do that as a follow up PR while fixing #68912

bertinatto · 2018-10-02T09:03:46Z

/retest

bertinatto · 2018-10-02T11:56:57Z

Just for the record, as I can't /lgtm:

I went through the code and it seems OK to me; and the unit test seems to have good coverage as well. +1 for another test case that extrapolates the volume limit.

msau42 · 2018-10-02T17:56:48Z

test/e2e/storage/volume_limits.go

+	)
+	f := framework.NewDefaultFramework("volume-limits-on-node")
+	BeforeEach(func() {
+		framework.SkipUnlessProviderIs("aws", "gce")


can you include "gke" in this list

msau42 · 2018-10-02T18:07:19Z

/lgtm

saad-ali · 2018-10-02T18:11:25Z

/lgtm
/approve

k8s-ci-robot · 2018-10-02T18:11:55Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: gnufied, msau42, saad-ali

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:

~~pkg/features/OWNERS~~ [saad-ali]
~~pkg/volume/csi/OWNERS~~ [gnufied,saad-ali]
~~test/e2e/storage/OWNERS~~ [gnufied,msau42,saad-ali]

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

fejta-bot · 2018-10-02T20:37:59Z

/retest
This bot automatically retries jobs that failed/flaked on approved PRs (send feedback to fejta).

Review the full test history for this PR.

Silence the bot with an /lgtm cancel comment for consistent failures.

…5-upstream-release-1.12 Automated cherry pick of #69225: Enable volume limit feature by default

k8s-ci-robot requested review from dchen1107 and jingxu97 September 28, 2018 17:14

gnufied force-pushed the volume-limit-tidy-up branch from aa9b632 to 3bc352a Compare September 28, 2018 17:31

ddebroy reviewed Sep 28, 2018

View reviewed changes

gnufied force-pushed the volume-limit-tidy-up branch 3 times, most recently from f62addb to d690511 Compare September 28, 2018 20:39

verult reviewed Sep 29, 2018

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot added kind/bug Categorizes issue or PR as related to a bug. and removed needs-kind Indicates a PR lacks a `kind/foo` label and requires one. labels Sep 30, 2018

Enable volume limit feature by default

575f79e

Also add tests for it.

k8s-ci-robot added the sig/testing Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Testing. label Oct 1, 2018

gnufied force-pushed the volume-limit-tidy-up branch from eb75532 to 76c1eb2 Compare October 1, 2018 18:37

msau42 reviewed Oct 1, 2018

View reviewed changes

gnufied force-pushed the volume-limit-tidy-up branch from 76c1eb2 to 4caa56f Compare October 2, 2018 17:51

msau42 reviewed Oct 2, 2018

View reviewed changes

Add a e2e test to check node limits

e38cfb6

gnufied force-pushed the volume-limit-tidy-up branch from 4caa56f to e38cfb6 Compare October 2, 2018 17:59

k8s-ci-robot assigned msau42 Oct 2, 2018

k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Oct 2, 2018

k8s-ci-robot assigned saad-ali Oct 2, 2018

k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Oct 2, 2018

k8s-ci-robot merged commit 2d67d78 into kubernetes:master Oct 3, 2018

gnufied mentioned this pull request Oct 3, 2018

Automated cherry pick of #69225: Enable volume limit feature by default #69375

Merged

k8s-ci-robot added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 4, 2018

Merge pull request #69375 from gnufied/automated-cherry-pick-of-#6922…

54a352d

…5-upstream-release-1.12 Automated cherry pick of #69225: Enable volume limit feature by default

warmchang mentioned this pull request Oct 25, 2018

Enable volume limit feature by default kubernetes/website#10728

Merged

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Enable volume limit feature by default #69225

Enable volume limit feature by default #69225

gnufied commented Sep 28, 2018 •

edited

ddebroy Sep 28, 2018

gnufied Sep 28, 2018

msau42 commented Sep 28, 2018

verult Sep 29, 2018

gnufied Oct 1, 2018

verult Sep 29, 2018

gnufied Oct 1, 2018

verult Sep 29, 2018

neolit123 commented Sep 30, 2018

gnufied commented Oct 1, 2018

msau42 Oct 1, 2018

msau42 Oct 2, 2018

gnufied Oct 2, 2018

msau42 Oct 1, 2018

gnufied Oct 1, 2018

msau42 Oct 1, 2018

gnufied Oct 1, 2018 •

edited

bertinatto commented Oct 2, 2018

bertinatto commented Oct 2, 2018 •

edited

msau42 Oct 2, 2018

gnufied Oct 2, 2018

msau42 commented Oct 2, 2018

saad-ali commented Oct 2, 2018

k8s-ci-robot commented Oct 2, 2018

fejta-bot commented Oct 2, 2018

Enable volume limit feature by default #69225

Enable volume limit feature by default #69225

Conversation

gnufied commented Sep 28, 2018 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

msau42 commented Sep 28, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

neolit123 commented Sep 30, 2018

gnufied commented Oct 1, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

gnufied Oct 1, 2018 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

bertinatto commented Oct 2, 2018

bertinatto commented Oct 2, 2018 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

msau42 commented Oct 2, 2018

saad-ali commented Oct 2, 2018

k8s-ci-robot commented Oct 2, 2018

fejta-bot commented Oct 2, 2018

gnufied commented Sep 28, 2018 •

edited

gnufied Oct 1, 2018 •

edited

bertinatto commented Oct 2, 2018 •

edited