Bug 1725249: Updating to not set CPU limit unless it is explicitly set

[ewolinetz]

Ref: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725249

Cherry pick of:

• Bug 1725148: Updating to not set CPU limit unless it is explicitly set #170
• Bug 1710404 - Removing setting a default cpu limit #160

Combination of:

• [release-4.1] Bug 1725249 - Updating to not set CPU limit unless it is explicitly set #172
• [release-4.1] Bug 1710404 - Removing setting a default cpu limit #163

[openshift-ci-robot]

@ewolinetz: 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:

Bug 1725249 : Updating to not set CPU limit unless it is explicitly set

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.

[sferich888]

/bugzilla refresh

[jcantrill]

/lgtm

[jcantrill]

/retest

[openshift-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: ewolinetz, jcantrill

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:

• OWNERS [ewolinetz,jcantrill]

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

[openshift-bot]

/retest

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

[ewolinetz]

/bugzilla refresh

[openshift-ci-robot]

@ewolinetz: 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:

/bugzilla 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.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@ewolinetz: This pull request references an invalid Bugzilla bug:

• expected dependent Bugzilla bug to be in one of the following states: VERIFIED, RELEASE_PENDING, CLOSED (ERRATA), but it is ON_QA instead

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

In response to this:

Bug 1725249: Updating to not set CPU limit unless it is explicitly set

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.

[ewolinetz]

/bugzilla refresh

[openshift-ci-robot]

@ewolinetz: This pull request references an invalid Bugzilla bug:

• expected dependent Bugzilla bug to be in one of the following states: VERIFIED, RELEASE_PENDING, CLOSED (ERRATA), but it is ON_QA instead

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

In response to this:

/bugzilla 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.

[eparis]

/bugzilla refresh

[openshift-ci-robot]

@eparis: This pull request references a valid Bugzilla bug.

In response to this:

/bugzilla 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.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@ewolinetz: This pull request references a valid Bugzilla bug.

In response to this:

Bug 1725249: Updating to not set CPU limit unless it is explicitly set

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.

[jwforres]

QE has validated the fix for this in 4.2 at least as far as new installs are concerned, so i'll approve this so we don't get any more installs set up this way. I do have a question on what happens if I have an EO already installed that was incorrectly setting limits, and we ship them this newer version of the operator. Will the newer EO automatically fix up the existing incorrect limits?

[jcantrill]

QE has validated the fix for this in 4.2 at least as far as new installs are concerned, so i'll approve this so we don't get any more installs set up this way. I do have a question on what happens if I have an EO already installed that was incorrectly setting limits, and we ship them this newer version of the operator. Will the newer EO automatically fix up the existing incorrect limits?

@ewolinetz do you know offhand? I would expect the CLO to recognize the difference in the CR and update the elasticsearch object causing the EO to see the difference and do a rolling restart of the cluster to reconcile.

[ewolinetz]

QE has validated the fix for this in 4.2 at least as far as new installs are concerned, so i'll approve this so we don't get any more installs set up this way. I do have a question on what happens if I have an EO already installed that was incorrectly setting limits, and we ship them this newer version of the operator. Will the newer EO automatically fix up the existing incorrect limits?

I would expect the CLO to recognize the difference in the CR and update the elasticsearch object causing the EO to see the difference and do a rolling restart of the cluster to reconcile.

As long as the elasticsearch CR is defined where it does not have a limit set for it, then yes, I believe this updated EO should correct an already deployed Deployment