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

Jump to bottom

[release-4.5] Bug 1883357: Bump es max_header_size to address errors seen in Kibana #504

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Oct 15, 2020
Merged

[release-4.5] Bug 1883357: Bump es max_header_size to address errors seen in Kibana #504

merged 1 commit into from Oct 15, 2020

Conversation

ewolinetz
Copy link
Contributor

@ewolinetz ewolinetz commented Sep 28, 2020 •
edited

Manual cherrypick of:

To address: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1883357

By default, ES has a max header size of 8kb which is too low for the case where it is behind a reverse proxy (in the case of our stack). This results in a 504 if trying to navigate to the Kibana exploration page, or a 400 if trying to access the Kibana status page.

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the bugzilla/severity-high Referenced Bugzilla bug's severity is high for the branch this PR is targeting. label Sep 28, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@ewolinetz: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1883357, which is invalid:

  • expected dependent Bugzilla bug 1866490 to be in one of the following states: VERIFIED, RELEASE_PENDING, CLOSED (ERRATA), but it is ON_QA instead
  • expected dependent Bugzilla bug 1878305 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 1883357: Bump es max_header_size to address errors seen in Kibana

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 bugzilla/invalid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is invalid for the branch this PR is targeting. label Sep 28, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Sep 28, 2020
@ewolinetz ewolinetz changed the title Bug 1883357: Bump es max_header_size to address errors seen in Kibana [release-4.5] Bug 1883357: Bump es max_header_size to address errors seen in Kibana Sep 29, 2020
@ewolinetz
Copy link
Contributor Author

/retest

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@ewolinetz: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1883357, which is invalid:

  • expected dependent Bugzilla bug 1878305 to be in one of the following states: VERIFIED, RELEASE_PENDING, CLOSED (ERRATA), but it is ON_QA instead
  • expected dependent Bugzilla bug 1883673 to be in one of the following states: VERIFIED, RELEASE_PENDING, CLOSED (ERRATA), but it is ASSIGNED instead
  • expected dependent Bugzilla bug 1883673 to target a release in 4.6.0, 4.6.z, but it targets "4.5.z" 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:

[release-4.5] Bug 1883357: Bump es max_header_size to address errors seen in Kibana

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
bumping es max_header_size from default of 8k to address kibana 504 i…
3cec739 
…ssues due to being behind a reverse proxy (the elasticsearch proxy)
@ewolinetz
Copy link
Contributor Author

/retest

alanconway
alanconway reviewed Oct 1, 2020
View reviewed changes
pkg/k8shandler/configuration_tmpl.go
@@ -35,6 +35,9 @@ path:
prometheus:
indices: false

# increase the max header size above 8kb default
http.max_header_size: 128kb
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

What's the new size based on?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

customer use cases

@ewolinetz
Copy link
Contributor Author

/retest

@jcantrill
Copy link
Contributor

/lgtm

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Oct 6, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

[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
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

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

3 similar comments
@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

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

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

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

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

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

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/bugzilla refresh

Recalculating validity in case the underlying Bugzilla bug has changed.

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@openshift-bot: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1883357, which is invalid:

  • expected dependent Bugzilla bug 1878305 to be in one of the following states: VERIFIED, RELEASE_PENDING, CLOSED (ERRATA), but it is ON_QA instead
  • expected dependent Bugzilla bug 1883673 to be in one of the following states: VERIFIED, RELEASE_PENDING, CLOSED (ERRATA), but it is POST instead
  • expected dependent Bugzilla bug 1883673 to target a release in 4.6.0, 4.6.z, but it targets "4.5.z" 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

Recalculating validity in case the underlying Bugzilla bug has changed.

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
Copy link
Contributor Author

/bugzilla refresh

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@ewolinetz: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1883357, which is invalid:

  • expected dependent Bugzilla bug 1883673 to be in one of the following states: VERIFIED, RELEASE_PENDING, CLOSED (ERRATA), but it is POST instead
  • expected dependent Bugzilla bug 1883673 to target a release in 4.6.0, 4.6.z, but it targets "4.5.z" 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.

@ewolinetz
Copy link
Contributor Author

/bugzilla refresh

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@ewolinetz: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1883357, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state. The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker.

8 validation(s) were run on this bug
  • bug is open, matching expected state (open)
  • bug target release (4.5.z) matches configured target release for branch (4.5.z)
  • bug is in the state ASSIGNED, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, ON_DEV, POST, POST)
  • dependent bug Bugzilla bug 1866490 is in the state VERIFIED, which is one of the valid states (VERIFIED, RELEASE_PENDING, CLOSED (ERRATA))
  • dependent bug Bugzilla bug 1878305 is in the state VERIFIED, which is one of the valid states (VERIFIED, RELEASE_PENDING, CLOSED (ERRATA))
  • dependent Bugzilla bug 1866490 targets the "4.6.0" release, which is one of the valid target releases: 4.6.0, 4.6.z
  • dependent Bugzilla bug 1878305 targets the "4.6.0" release, which is one of the valid target releases: 4.6.0, 4.6.z
  • bug has dependents

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 openshift-ci-robot added the bugzilla/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. label Oct 7, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot removed the bugzilla/invalid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is invalid for the branch this PR is targeting. label Oct 7, 2020
@alanconway
Copy link
Contributor

/uncc

@knobunc knobunc added the cherry-pick-approved Indicates a cherry-pick PR into a release branch has been approved by the release branch manager. label Oct 14, 2020
@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

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

2 similar comments
@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

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

@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 c89d003 into openshift:release-4.5 Oct 15, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

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

Bugzilla bug 1883357 has been moved to the MODIFIED state.

In response to this:

[release-4.5] Bug 1883357: Bump es max_header_size to address errors seen in Kibana

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.

@StevenBarre StevenBarre mentioned this pull request Oct 30, 2020
Closed
1 task
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@alanconway alanconway alanconway left review comments

@vimalk78 vimalk78 Awaiting requested review from vimalk78

Assignees

@jcantrill jcantrill

Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. bugzilla/severity-high Referenced Bugzilla bug's severity is high 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. cherry-pick-approved Indicates a cherry-pick PR into a release branch has been approved by the release branch manager. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
7 participants
@ewolinetz @openshift-ci-robot @jcantrill @openshift-bot @alanconway @knobunc @openshift-merge-robot