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 201551: Use Local instead of Cluster for ext traf policy #26722

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

jluhrsen
Copy link
Contributor

With OVN on GCP there there is an LB disruption when
a node is rebooted. Each node in the cluster handles
LB requests when the policy is Cluster and there is
a bug that requests will still be given to the rebooting
node as they are LB'd to each node. When that happens
the request will hang and this shows up as a disruption.
the bug still needs to be resolved as this is not a
problem in other environments (openshift-sdn, other
clouds like aws)

Signed-off-by: Jamo Luhrsen jluhrsen@gmail.com

With OVN on GCP there there is an LB disruption when
a node is rebooted. Each node in the cluster handles
LB requests when the policy is Cluster and there is
a bug that requests will still be given to the rebooting
node as they are LB'd to each node. When that happens
the request will hang and this shows up as a disruption.
the bug still needs to be resolved as this is not a
problem in other environments (openshift-sdn, other
clouds like aws)

Signed-off-by: Jamo Luhrsen <jluhrsen@gmail.com>
@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Dec 23, 2021

@jluhrsen: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 201551, which is invalid:

  • expected the bug to be open, but it isn't
  • expected the bug to target the "4.10.0" release, but it targets "---" instead
  • expected the bug to be in one of the following states: NEW, ASSIGNED, ON_DEV, POST, POST, but it is CLOSED (NEXTRELEASE) 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 201551: Use Local instead of Cluster for ext traf policy

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 openshift-ci bot added bugzilla/severity-medium Referenced Bugzilla bug's severity is medium for the branch this PR is targeting. bugzilla/invalid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is invalid for the branch this PR is targeting. labels Dec 23, 2021
@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Dec 23, 2021

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: jluhrsen
To complete the pull request process, please assign bparees after the PR has been reviewed.
You can assign the PR to them by writing /assign @bparees in a comment when ready.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found 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
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Dec 23, 2021

@jluhrsen: The following tests 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-aws-serial 8faa2d9 link true /test e2e-aws-serial
ci/prow/e2e-gcp-upgrade 8faa2d9 link true /test e2e-gcp-upgrade
ci/prow/e2e-agnostic-cmd 8faa2d9 link false /test e2e-agnostic-cmd
ci/prow/e2e-aws-fips 8faa2d9 link true /test e2e-aws-fips

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.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/bugzilla refresh

The requirements for Bugzilla bugs have changed, recalculating validity.

@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Jan 1, 2022

@openshift-bot: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 201551, which is invalid:

  • expected the bug to be open, but it isn't
  • expected the bug to target the "4.10.0" release, but it targets "---" instead
  • expected the bug to be in one of the following states: NEW, ASSIGNED, ON_DEV, POST, POST, but it is CLOSED (NEXTRELEASE) 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

The requirements for Bugzilla bugs have changed, recalculating validity.

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.

@jluhrsen jluhrsen closed this Feb 8, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bugzilla/invalid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is invalid for the branch this PR is targeting. bugzilla/severity-medium Referenced Bugzilla bug's severity is medium for the branch this PR is targeting.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants