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

[release-4.11] OCPBUGS-3490: OVN-Kubernetes: Prefer oldest nodes #1641

Merged

Conversation

kyrtapz
Copy link
Contributor

@kyrtapz kyrtapz commented Nov 28, 2022

This cherry picks the improvements to ovn-k startup from #1579

/cc @martinkennelly @dcbw

Sometimes the number of masters changes, like when in the etcd test:

etcd [apigroup:config.openshift.io] is able to vertically scale up and down with a single node

This leads to problems like:

I0909 11:16:02.221234       1 ovn_kubernetes.go:938] Waiting to complete OVN bootstrap: found (4) master nodes out of (3) expected: timing out in 235 seconds

ovsdb-server only ever wants an odd number of members to ensure consensus in
RAFT clusters. If we have 4 members and one of them is dead (like when the
4th one gets deleted) the RAFT cluster gets a bit unhappy.

The CNO currently renders the ovnkube master pods with the IP addresses of all
master nodes, regardless of how many control plane nodes were actually
requested at install time. That's not cool. Don't do that.

Instead, take the oldest master nodes (sorted by creation time) as the
RAFT cluster members. Tell any NB/SB containers that aren't in the list
to do nothing for a really long time (to prevent CrashloopBackoff due to
early exits from the container script) and not join the cluster.

If this really is a master replacement, then the cluster will shift over
to the new master when the original one is finally removed.

Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dcbw@redhat.com>
(cherry picked from commit c0c317e)
(cherry picked from commit 9d22f87)
When the postStart hooks fail kubelet kills the DB containers with a 30s
grace period. If the DBs started at different times (because they're on
different nodes, have different kubelets, etc) they may not have enough
runtime overlap to establish the RAFT cluster before one or more of them
get killed by kubelet.

First, make the postStart scripts wait longer by retrying the stuff they
do more times until the cluster is established.

Second, wrap the IPsec enable/disable in a retry loop too and make it exit
with an error if it fails instead of ignoring the problem.

Third, add an IPsec check to the SB postStart to wait a bit more time for
the SB cluster to establish, if needed.

(cherry picked from commit d994351)
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Nov 28, 2022
@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Nov 28, 2022

@kyrtapz: No Bugzilla bug is referenced in the title of this pull request.
To reference a bug, add 'Bug XXX:' to the title of this pull request and request another bug refresh with /bugzilla refresh.

In response to this:

[release-4.11] OVN-Kubernetes: Prefer oldest nodes

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-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Nov 28, 2022

@kyrtapz: GitHub didn't allow me to request PR reviews from the following users: kyrtapz.

Note that only openshift members and repo collaborators can review this PR, and authors cannot review their own PRs.

In response to this:

This cherry picks the improvements to ovn-k startup from #1579

/cc
/hold

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.

@kyrtapz
Copy link
Contributor Author

kyrtapz commented Nov 28, 2022

/retest

@kyrtapz kyrtapz changed the title [release-4.11] OVN-Kubernetes: Prefer oldest nodes [release-4.11] OCPBUGS-3490 OVN-Kubernetes: Prefer oldest nodes Nov 29, 2022
@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Nov 29, 2022

@kyrtapz: No Bugzilla bug is referenced in the title of this pull request.
To reference a bug, add 'Bug XXX:' to the title of this pull request and request another bug refresh with /bugzilla refresh.

In response to this:

[release-4.11] OCPBUGS-3490 OVN-Kubernetes: Prefer oldest nodes

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.

1 similar comment
@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Nov 29, 2022

@kyrtapz: No Bugzilla bug is referenced in the title of this pull request.
To reference a bug, add 'Bug XXX:' to the title of this pull request and request another bug refresh with /bugzilla refresh.

In response to this:

[release-4.11] OCPBUGS-3490 OVN-Kubernetes: Prefer oldest nodes

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.

@kyrtapz kyrtapz changed the title [release-4.11] OCPBUGS-3490 OVN-Kubernetes: Prefer oldest nodes [release-4.11] OCPBUGS-3490: OVN-Kubernetes: Prefer oldest nodes Nov 29, 2022
@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Nov 29, 2022

@kyrtapz: No Bugzilla bug is referenced in the title of this pull request.
To reference a bug, add 'Bug XXX:' to the title of this pull request and request another bug refresh with /bugzilla refresh.

In response to this:

[release-4.11] OCPBUGS-3490: OVN-Kubernetes: Prefer oldest nodes

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-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@kyrtapz: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-3490, which is invalid:

  • expected the bug to target the "4.11.z" version, but no target version was set
  • expected Jira Issue OCPBUGS-3490 to depend on a bug targeting a version in 4.12.0 and in one of the following states: VERIFIED, RELEASE PENDING, CLOSED (ERRATA), CLOSED (CURRENT RELEASE), CLOSED (DONE), but no dependents were found

Comment /jira refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Jira bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker.

In response to this:

This cherry picks the improvements to ovn-k startup from #1579

/cc @martinkennelly @dcbw

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-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the jira/invalid-bug Indicates that a referenced Jira bug is invalid for the branch this PR is targeting. label Nov 29, 2022
@kyrtapz
Copy link
Contributor Author

kyrtapz commented Nov 29, 2022

/jira refresh

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added jira/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Jira bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. bugzilla/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. and removed jira/invalid-bug Indicates that a referenced Jira bug is invalid for the branch this PR is targeting. labels Nov 29, 2022
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@kyrtapz: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-3490, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state.

6 validation(s) were run on this bug
  • bug is open, matching expected state (open)
  • bug target version (4.11.z) matches configured target version for branch (4.11.z)
  • bug is in the state New, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)
  • dependent bug Jira Issue OCPBUGS-4237 is in the state Closed (Done), which is one of the valid states (VERIFIED, RELEASE PENDING, CLOSED (ERRATA), CLOSED (CURRENT RELEASE), CLOSED (DONE))
  • dependent Jira Issue OCPBUGS-4237 targets the "4.12.0" version, which is one of the valid target versions: 4.12.0
  • bug has dependents

In response to this:

/jira refresh

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.

@kyrtapz
Copy link
Contributor Author

kyrtapz commented Nov 29, 2022

/remove-hold

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Nov 29, 2022
@kyrtapz
Copy link
Contributor Author

kyrtapz commented Nov 29, 2022

/retest

@martinkennelly
Copy link
Contributor

/retest
Job e2e-hypershift is failing with "failed to get version for release image". Looks like registry issue.

@kyrtapz
Copy link
Contributor Author

kyrtapz commented Dec 6, 2022

/retest

@martinkennelly
Copy link
Contributor

/retest
:(

@kyrtapz
Copy link
Contributor Author

kyrtapz commented Dec 8, 2022

/retest

@kyrtapz
Copy link
Contributor Author

kyrtapz commented Dec 8, 2022

HyperShift failure doesn't look related, OVN-K Master is up and running

@dcbw
Copy link
Contributor

dcbw commented Dec 8, 2022

/approve
/lgtm

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Dec 8, 2022
@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Dec 8, 2022

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: dcbw, kyrtapz

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 openshift-ci bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Dec 8, 2022
@jcaamano
Copy link
Contributor

/label backport-risk-assessed

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the backport-risk-assessed Indicates a PR to a release branch has been evaluated and considered safe to accept. label Dec 12, 2022
@mffiedler
Copy link

/label cherry-pick-approved

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the cherry-pick-approved Indicates a cherry-pick PR into a release branch has been approved by the release branch manager. label Dec 12, 2022
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest-required

Remaining retests: 0 against base HEAD 0d88535 and 2 for PR HEAD c14fa49 in total

@kyrtapz
Copy link
Contributor Author

kyrtapz commented Dec 12, 2022

/retest-required

1 similar comment
@kyrtapz
Copy link
Contributor Author

kyrtapz commented Dec 21, 2022

/retest-required

@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Dec 21, 2022

@kyrtapz: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name Commit Details Required Rerun command
ci/prow/e2e-hypershift c14fa49 link false /test e2e-hypershift

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.

@kyrtapz
Copy link
Contributor Author

kyrtapz commented Dec 21, 2022

/retest-required

@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit ae7c9d9 into openshift:release-4.11 Dec 21, 2022
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@kyrtapz: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged:

Jira Issue OCPBUGS-3490 has been moved to the MODIFIED state.

In response to this:

This cherry picks the improvements to ovn-k startup from #1579

/cc @martinkennelly @dcbw

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. backport-risk-assessed Indicates a PR to a release branch has been evaluated and considered safe to accept. bugzilla/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. cherry-pick-approved Indicates a cherry-pick PR into a release branch has been approved by the release branch manager. jira/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Jira bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. 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