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 1842002: use internal LB to avoid outages during kube-apiserver rollout #431

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jul 21, 2020

Conversation

deads2k
Copy link
Contributor

@deads2k deads2k commented Jul 21, 2020

This makes us vulnerable to internal LB config that we do not own, but kubelets already break

Doing it like this leverages our existing config observation instead of creating a dynamic kubeconfig handling.

/assign @soltysh @sanchezl @tnozicka

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Jul 21, 2020
@deads2k
Copy link
Contributor Author

deads2k commented Jul 21, 2020

I think this one is enough to fix the endpoints problem. We should move this to library-go if we decide on it for kube-scheduler too

Copy link
Contributor

@sanchezl sanchezl left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/lgtm

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jul 21, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: deads2k, sanchezl

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-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

1 similar comment
@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit 028a0a9 into openshift:master Jul 21, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@deads2k: The following tests failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests:

Test name Commit Details Rerun command
ci/prow/e2e-aws-upgrade 8b41541 link /test e2e-aws-upgrade
ci/prow/e2e-aws 8b41541 link /test e2e-aws

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

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. I understand the commands that are listed here.

t.Fatal(errs)
} else {
if !reflect.DeepEqual(test.expected, result) {
t.Errorf("\n===== observed config expected:\n%v\n===== observed config actual:\n%v", toYAML(test.expected), toYAML(result))
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

cmp.Diff shows those nicely

@tnozicka
Copy link
Contributor

How does this work when the client kubeconfigs still point to localhost?

@tnozicka tnozicka changed the title use internal LB to avoid outages during kube-apiserver rollout Bug 1842002: use internal LB to avoid outages during kube-apiserver rollout Jul 28, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@deads2k: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged: openshift/cluster-kube-controller-manager-operator#431. Bugzilla bug 1842002 has been moved to the MODIFIED state.

In response to this:

Bug 1842002: use internal LB to avoid outages during kube-apiserver rollout

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.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

7 participants