Skip to content
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

Bug 1809665: Tune AWS load balancers to be consistent with other platforms #363

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Feb 26, 2020

Conversation

smarterclayton
Copy link
Contributor

@smarterclayton smarterclayton commented Feb 21, 2020

GCP and Azure both hardcode LB timeouts - set AWS to match the lower bound of Azure (2 failures @ 5s interval, 2 healthy). By default AWS is 6 failures @ 10s which is a very long timeout for the router.

In the future, if these attributes become customizable on GCP and Azure, they should be consistent with our AWS settings.

If we see flakiness at this lower check interval, we may want to consider bumping to 3 successive failures. However, it's generally best to start at the low end and then tune up to be as responsive
as possible to rollouts.

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files. label Feb 21, 2020
@smarterclayton smarterclayton changed the title Tune AWS load balancers to be consistent with other settigns Tune AWS load balancers to be consistent with other platforms Feb 21, 2020
@smarterclayton
Copy link
Contributor Author

@sttts when we picked numbers for kube-apiserver, what were our bounds? Any considerations I might be missing?

@smarterclayton
Copy link
Contributor Author

/retest

1 similar comment
@smarterclayton
Copy link
Contributor Author

/retest

GCP and Azure both hardcode LB timeouts - set AWS to match the
lower bound of Azure (2 failures @ 5s interval, 2 healthy).
By default AWS is 6 failures @ 10s which is a very long timeout
for the router.

In the future, if these attributes become customizable on GCP and
Azure, they should be consistent with our AWS settings.
@smarterclayton
Copy link
Contributor Author

/retest

@sttts
Copy link

sttts commented Feb 24, 2020

@sttts when we picked numbers for kube-apiserver, what were our bounds? Any considerations I might be missing?

We started out with 10 sec interval and threshold 3. We never questioned those numbers. The 70 sec minimal termination delay was just derived from that, working well in practice. So no strong analysis behind all of that.

@smarterclayton
Copy link
Contributor Author

/assign @ironcladlou

@@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ var (
"service.beta.kubernetes.io/aws-load-balancer-internal": "0.0.0.0/0",
},
configv1.AzurePlatformType: {
// Azure load balancers are not customizable and are set to (2 fail @ 5s interval, 2 healthy)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks like a leftover that needs deleted

@ironcladlou
Copy link
Contributor

/approve
/lgtm

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Feb 26, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: ironcladlou, smarterclayton

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

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Feb 26, 2020
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit 6a0269e into openshift:master Feb 26, 2020
@Miciah
Copy link
Contributor

Miciah commented Mar 3, 2020

/retitle Bug 1809665: Tune AWS load balancers to be consistent with other platforms
/cherry-pick release-4.4

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot changed the title Tune AWS load balancers to be consistent with other platforms Bug 1809665: Tune AWS load balancers to be consistent with other platforms Mar 3, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@smarterclayton: Bugzilla bug 1809665 is in an unrecognized state (ON_QA) and will not be moved to the MODIFIED state.

In response to this:

Bug 1809665: Tune AWS load balancers to be consistent with other platforms

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

@openshift-cherrypick-robot

@Miciah: new pull request created: #370

In response to this:

/retitle Bug 1809665: Tune AWS load balancers to be consistent with other platforms
/cherry-pick release-4.4
/cherry-pick release-4.3

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

@Miciah
Copy link
Contributor

Miciah commented Mar 3, 2020

/cherry-pick release-4.3

@openshift-cherrypick-robot

@Miciah: new pull request created: #371

In response to this:

/cherry-pick release-4.3

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

7 participants