-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 154
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
Container version not starting #16
Comments
Hi, |
Request is just for reserving resources on the node, no? The limit will remain the upper limit of available resources regardless of whether there is a request or not. I gave it a try anyway and still no change I'm afraid. The previous pod attempt terminated and the image pulled again, but it fails to start. |
I have the container running very well on k3s 1.17 / 1.18 for a long time, on rpi 3 and 4. |
Sure here they are: (note I changed the deployment name)
That appears to give a hint. I wasn't aware of that command. Note though just for awareness that all other pods and deployments that I attempt to start do so without issue. |
A bit of research shows this can sometimes happen when the image architecture is wrong? I added ":arm64" to the image to pull and it made no change unfortunately. |
this my guess as well, and why I asked for pod logs. I have compiled the image for arm64 (latest and arm64 are the same image), and you are probably using arm32/v6 with the 32 bits version of Raspbian on your rpi3b. I can try to compile an arm32 version of the container in the next few days. |
Ooooh man that explains it. It never clicked that raspberry OS is 32 bit. I never realised that. If you're happy and willing to compile a 32 bit version that would be incredibly awesome of you. |
Can you try mickkael/librespeed-go:arm ? |
No change sorry. Same error occurs.
…On Thu, 12 Nov 2020, 13:24 mickkael, ***@***.***> wrote:
Can you try mickkael/librespeed-go:arm ?
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#16 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADUNCRVS3NSWBZ7RFTTW3DLSPMTKNANCNFSM4TRH2LUQ>
.
|
I'm not too familiar with how Docker Hub works but I notice the "OS/arch" field for the new arm version still says "arm64". Is that a functional difference or just a metadata field? |
I actually compile on arm64, but I put GOARCH=arm to Go during the
compilation.
This should work but apparently it is not.
I need to troubleshoot further
…On Thu, 12 Nov 2020, 09:29 2fst4u, ***@***.***> wrote:
I'm not too familiar with how Docker Hub works but I notice the "OS/arch"
field for the new arm version still says "arm64". Is that a functional
difference or just a metadata field?
—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#16 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEWXDHN63TLLJLJCKW55D3TSPM26FANCNFSM4TRH2LUQ>
.
|
Interesting.
Thank you for trying, I appreciate the effort. Don't feel like you have to
get it done immediately for my sake, if you're anything like me then once
you know something's not working it's hard to let it go until you've sorted
it 😝.
No rush at all.
…On Thu, 12 Nov 2020, 16:18 mickkael, ***@***.***> wrote:
I actually compile on arm64, but I put GOARCH=arm to Go during the
compilation.
This should work but apparently it is not.
I need to troubleshoot further
On Thu, 12 Nov 2020, 09:29 2fst4u, ***@***.***> wrote:
> I'm not too familiar with how Docker Hub works but I notice the "OS/arch"
> field for the new arm version still says "arm64". Is that a functional
> difference or just a metadata field?
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you commented.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <
#16 (comment)
>,
> or unsubscribe
> <
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEWXDHN63TLLJLJCKW55D3TSPM26FANCNFSM4TRH2LUQ
>
> .
>
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#16 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADUNCRWZDFXTQBMXM6YKITTSPNHY3ANCNFSM4TRH2LUQ>
.
|
What about this one If it works, I'll work on a multi arch image |
No change sorry. Same error.
…On Sat, 14 Nov 2020, 14:38 mickkael, ***@***.***> wrote:
What about this one
mickkael/librespeed-go:armv6
If it works, I'll work on a multi arch image
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#16 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADUNCRVHO5CYDNYHPFPNF6LSPXNR5ANCNFSM4TRH2LUQ>
.
|
kaniko is not good for cross platform, I'll install docker and build with it |
mickkael/librespeed-go:arm32v6 ? |
Success! Nice job mate, started properly and did a full saturation of throughput on a raspberry pi 3B. Nice work! |
Can you close the issue ? |
Will do. Thanks for the effort. |
multiarch image available: |
Description
Unable to run the docker container
Server
Raspberry pi 3B running K3S
Client
Chrome on Android (works fine using the regular librespeed version)
Steps to reproduce
Following the regular librespeed docker instructions I have a working install, however it's slow because of the PHP. In switching over to this version I have just changed the image line in my kubernetes deployment yaml file to pull this version, however the container doesn't pull and start.
Expected behaviour
Container should pull and run.
This is my deployment yaml:
And this is the output I get when checking events:
10m Normal Scheduled pod/librespeed-deployment-768fd648b9-mt65r Successfully assigned prod/librespeed-deployment-768fd648b9-mt65r to k3s-node1 9m53s Normal Pulled pod/librespeed-deployment-768fd648b9-mt65r Successfully pulled image "mickkael/librespeed-go" 9m52s Normal Created pod/librespeed-deployment-768fd648b9-mt65r Created container librespeed 9m52s Normal Started pod/librespeed-deployment-768fd648b9-mt65r Started container librespeed 9m3s Normal Pulling pod/librespeed-deployment-768fd648b9-mt65r Pulling image "mickkael/librespeed-go" 34s Warning BackOff pod/librespeed-deployment-768fd648b9-mt65r Back-off restarting failed container
Any ideas what I might be doing wrong?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: