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

Containerized kubelet is no longer experimental #57034

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jan 8, 2018

Conversation

@ingvagabund
Contributor

ingvagabund commented Dec 11, 2017

Blocked by #56250

Given the node e2e Conformance tests over containerized Kubelet are already running and are published at https://k8s-testgrid.appspot.com/sig-node-kubelet#kubelet-containerized-conformance-aws-e2e-rhel, we can remove all mentions of the "experimental" keyword.

Are there any other place where the "containerized Kubelet" is mentioned as experimental?

NONE
@dixudx

This comment has been minimized.

Member

dixudx commented Dec 11, 2017

/retest
/lgtm

@feiskyer

This comment has been minimized.

Member

feiskyer commented Dec 12, 2017

@dchen1107 Is containerized kubelet stable enough for production?

/cc @kubernetes/sig-node-pr-reviews

@krmayankk

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

krmayankk commented Dec 12, 2017

@ingvagabund does this mean there are no longer any issues remaining with running kubelet as a container ?

@@ -333,7 +333,7 @@ func (f *KubeletFlags) AddFlags(fs *pflag.FlagSet) {
// EXPERIMENTAL FLAGS
fs.StringVar(&f.ExperimentalMounterPath, "experimental-mounter-path", f.ExperimentalMounterPath, "[Experimental] Path of mounter binary. Leave empty to use the default mount.")
fs.StringSliceVar(&f.AllowedUnsafeSysctls, "experimental-allowed-unsafe-sysctls", f.AllowedUnsafeSysctls, "Comma-separated whitelist of unsafe sysctls or unsafe sysctl patterns (ending in *). Use these at your own risk.")
fs.BoolVar(&f.Containerized, "containerized", f.Containerized, "Experimental support for running kubelet in a container. Intended for testing.")
fs.BoolVar(&f.Containerized, "containerized", f.Containerized, "Running kubelet in a container.")

This comment has been minimized.

@mtaufen

mtaufen Dec 12, 2017

Contributor

Please also move this line out of the //EXPERIMENTAL FLAGS block

This comment has been minimized.

@ingvagabund

ingvagabund Jan 8, 2018

Contributor

done

@feiskyer feiskyer removed their assignment Jan 4, 2018

@sjenning

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

sjenning commented Jan 8, 2018

@ingvagabund can you address @mtaufen nit above (move from experimental flags section in the code)?

@dchen1107 @vishh can we get feedback on this? Thanks!

@k8s-merge-robot k8s-merge-robot removed the lgtm label Jan 8, 2018

@ingvagabund

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

ingvagabund commented Jan 8, 2018

@ingvagabund does this mean there are no longer any issues remaining with running kubelet as a container ?

@krmayankk we have been running containerized nodes in OpenShift successfully for quite some time. Though, it does not mean all issues are gone or none will pop up. We run conformance tests over containerized Kubelet [1] as well to see how it does.

[1] https://k8s-testgrid.appspot.com/sig-node-kubelet#kubelet-containerized-conformance-aws-e2e-rhel

@ingvagabund ingvagabund added the lgtm label Jan 8, 2018

@ingvagabund ingvagabund changed the title from WIP: Containerized kubelet is no longer experimental to Containerized kubelet is no longer experimental Jan 8, 2018

@derekwaynecarr

This comment has been minimized.

Member

derekwaynecarr commented Jan 8, 2018

@dchen1107 - per our discussion, we have integrated containerized e2e runs with test-grid and demonstrated no issue running kubelet in a container. this will give us a clear test signal moving forward.

/approve no-issue

@k8s-ci-robot

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

k8s-ci-robot commented Jan 8, 2018

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: derekwaynecarr, dixudx, ingvagabund

Associated issue requirement bypassed by: derekwaynecarr

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

Needs approval from an approver in each of these OWNERS Files:

You can indicate your approval by writing /approve in a comment
You can cancel your approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@derekwaynecarr derekwaynecarr self-assigned this Jan 8, 2018

@k8s-merge-robot

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

k8s-merge-robot commented Jan 8, 2018

/test all [submit-queue is verifying that this PR is safe to merge]

@k8s-merge-robot

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

k8s-merge-robot commented Jan 8, 2018

Automatic merge from submit-queue. If you want to cherry-pick this change to another branch, please follow the instructions here.

@k8s-merge-robot k8s-merge-robot merged commit 50a641d into kubernetes:master Jan 8, 2018

12 of 13 checks passed

Submit Queue Required Github CI test is not green: pull-kubernetes-verify
Details
cla/linuxfoundation ingvagabund authorized
Details
pull-kubernetes-bazel-build Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-bazel-test Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-cross Skipped
pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce-device-plugin-gpu Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-e2e-gke-gci Skipped
pull-kubernetes-e2e-kops-aws Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-kubemark-e2e-gce Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-node-e2e Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-unit Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-verify Job succeeded.
Details

@ingvagabund ingvagabund deleted the ingvagabund:remove-mention-of-experimental-on-containerized-kubelet branch Jan 8, 2018

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment