kubeadm: fix flakes when performing etcd MemberAdd on slower setups #90645
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
In slower setups it can take more time for the existing cluster to be in a healthy state, so the existing backoff of ~50 seconds is apparently not sufficient. The client dial can also fail for similar reasons. Improve kubeadm's join toleration of adding new etcd members. Wrap both the client dial and member add in a longer backoff (up to ~200 seconds). This particular change should be backported to the support skew. In a future change for master, all etcd client operations should be make consistent so that the etcd logic is in a sane state.
k8s-ci-robot
added
do-not-merge/work-in-progress
|
/kind bug |
k8s-ci-robot
added
kind/bug
|
/priority important-soon |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
approved
k8s-ci-robot
added
priority/important-soon
neolit123
changed the title
k8s-ci-robot
removed
the
do-not-merge/work-in-progress
|
/approve cancel |
k8s-ci-robot
removed
the
approved
|
/cc @ereslibre |
fabriziopandini
approved these changes
May 4, 2020
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@neolit123 thanks!
/approve
/lgtm
/hold
for @ereslibre to review the changes
k8s-ci-robot
added
do-not-merge/hold
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: fabriziopandini 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 |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
approved
|
applying lazy consensus until Tuesday next week. /retest |
|
/hold cancel |
k8s-ci-robot
removed
the
do-not-merge/hold
|
/retest Review the full test history for this PR. Silence the bot with an |
1 similar comment
|
/retest Review the full test history for this PR. Silence the bot with an |
k8s-ci-robot
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 18, 2020
…645-origin-release-1.18 Automated cherry pick of #90645: kubeadm: fix flakes when performing etcd MemberAdd on slower
k8s-ci-robot
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 30, 2020
…645-origin-release-1.17 Automated cherry pick of #90645: kubeadm: fix flakes when performing etcd MemberAdd on slower
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What this PR does / why we need it:
In slower setups it can take more time for the existing cluster
to be in a healthy state, so the existing backoff of ~50 seconds
is apparently not sufficient.
The client dial can also fail for similar reasons.
Improve kubeadm's join toleration of adding new etcd members.
Wrap both the client dial and member add in a longer backoff
(up to ~200 seconds).
This particular change should be backported to the support skew.
In a future change for master, all etcd client operations should be
made consistent, so that the etcd logic is in a sane state.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
refs kubernetes/kubeadm#2094
Special notes for your reviewer:
NONE
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:
Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.: