Containerized kubelet is no longer experimental #57034
Conversation
ingvagabund
requested review from
dixudx,
mtaufen and
xiangpengzhao
and removed request for
dixudx
|
/retest |
|
@dchen1107 Is containerized kubelet stable enough for production? |
|
@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.") | |||
mtaufen
Dec 12, 2017
Contributor
Please also move this line out of the //EXPERIMENTAL FLAGS block
Please also move this line out of the //EXPERIMENTAL FLAGS block
ingvagabund
Jan 8, 2018
Author
Contributor
done
done
|
@ingvagabund can you address @mtaufen nit above (move from experimental flags section in the code)? @dchen1107 @vishh can we get feedback on this? Thanks! |
ingvagabund
force-pushed the
ingvagabund:remove-mention-of-experimental-on-containerized-kubelet
branch
from
94b7682
to
93602cd
@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
changed the title
k8s-ci-robot
added
release-note-none
and removed
do-not-merge/work-in-progress
do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed
labels
|
@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 |
|
[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 |
|
/test all [submit-queue is verifying that this PR is safe to merge] |
|
Automatic merge from submit-queue. If you want to cherry-pick this change to another branch, please follow the instructions here. |
k8s-github-robot
merged commit 50a641d
into
kubernetes:master
ingvagabund
deleted the
ingvagabund:remove-mention-of-experimental-on-containerized-kubelet
branch
Blocked by #56250
Given the node e2e Conformance tests over containerized
Kubeletare 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?