Skip to content

Conversation

prithvipatil97
Copy link
Contributor

@prithvipatil97 prithvipatil97 commented Dec 16, 2024

apiVersion: "logging.openshift.io/v1"
kind: "ClusterLogging"
metadata:
  name: "instance"   
  namespace: openshift-logging   
spec:
collection:  <<== collection indentation is wrongly mentioned
    resources: 
      limits:
        memory: 736Mi
      requests:
        cpu: 200m
        memory: 736Mi
    type: fluentd
  • Due to this spec.collection will not get applied in the ClusterLogging instance CR.
  • The correct configuration should look like the following:
apiVersion: "logging.openshift.io/v1"
kind: "ClusterLogging"
metadata:
  name: "instance"   
  namespace: openshift-logging   
spec:
  collection:                 <<== Here is the correct indentation
    resources: 
      limits:
        memory: 736Mi
      requests:
        cpu: 200m
        memory: 736Mi
    type: fluentd

Version(s):

RHOCP 4.13

Issue:

https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OBSDOCS-1522

Link to docs preview:

https://86306--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-enterprise/latest/observability/logging/config/cluster-logging-memory.html
https://86306--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-enterprise/latest/observability/logging/log_visualization/logging-kibana.html

QE review:

  • QE has approved this change.

Additional information:

…its for logging components

- Indentation fault in Configuring CPU and memory limits for logging components in Documentation.

- Here is the documentation link:  
https://docs.openshift.com/container-platform/4.13/observability/logging/config/cluster-logging-memory.html#cluster-logging-memory-limits_cluster-logging-memory

- Here, `spec.collection` indentation is wrongly mentioned.

~~~
apiVersion: "logging.openshift.io/v1"
kind: "ClusterLogging"
metadata:
  name: "instance"  
  namespace: openshift-logging  
spec:
collection:  <<== collection indentation is wrongly mentioned
    resources: 
      limits:
        memory: 736Mi
      requests:
        cpu: 200m
        memory: 736Mi
    type: fluentd
~~~

- Due to this `spec.collection` will not get applied in the ClusterLogging instance CR.
- The correct configuration should look like the following:

~~~
apiVersion: "logging.openshift.io/v1"
kind: "ClusterLogging"
metadata:
  name: "instance"  
  namespace: openshift-logging  
spec:
  collection:                 <<== Here is the correct indentation
    resources: 
      limits:
        memory: 736Mi
      requests:
        cpu: 200m
        memory: 736Mi
    type: fluentd
~~~
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files. label Dec 16, 2024
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Dec 16, 2024

@prithvipatil97: all tests passed!

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-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

@prithvipatil97
Copy link
Contributor Author

/label peer-review-needed

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the peer-review-needed Signifies that the peer review team needs to review this PR label Dec 16, 2024
@snarayan-redhat snarayan-redhat added peer-review-in-progress Signifies that the peer review team is reviewing this PR and removed peer-review-needed Signifies that the peer review team needs to review this PR labels Dec 16, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@snarayan-redhat snarayan-redhat left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM!

@snarayan-redhat snarayan-redhat added peer-review-done Signifies that the peer review team has reviewed this PR and removed peer-review-in-progress Signifies that the peer review team is reviewing this PR labels Dec 16, 2024
@prithvipatil97
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hello @snarayan-redhat ,
Thank you very much for the peer review and for providing the approval.

@prithvipatil97
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hello Team,
I need QE approval for this change.
All tests have passed and Peer review is also done.

@anpingli , @kabirbhartiRH , @QiaolingTang , It would be really helpful if someone could please take a look and provide QE approval for this change.

Thanks in advance.

@QiaolingTang
Copy link

LGTM.

@prithvipatil97
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hello @QiaolingTang ,
Thank you very much for providing the QE approval for this PR.

Regards,
Prithviraj Patil

@prithvipatil97
Copy link
Contributor Author

/label merge-review-needed

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the merge-review-needed Signifies that the merge review team needs to review this PR label Dec 17, 2024
@stevsmit stevsmit added merge-review-in-progress Signifies that the merge review team is reviewing this PR branch/enterprise-4.13 lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. and removed merge-review-needed Signifies that the merge review team needs to review this PR labels Dec 17, 2024
@stevsmit stevsmit merged commit 5aeb291 into openshift:enterprise-4.13 Dec 17, 2024
2 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

branch/enterprise-4.13 lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. merge-review-in-progress Signifies that the merge review team is reviewing this PR peer-review-done Signifies that the peer review team has reviewed this PR 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.

5 participants