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

Feature Request: Proxy containers start before application containers #496

Closed
2 tasks
hessjcg opened this issue Nov 28, 2023 · 4 comments
Closed
2 tasks
Assignees
Labels
priority: p2 Moderately-important priority. Fix may not be included in next release. type: feature request ‘Nice-to-have’ improvement, new feature or different behavior or design.

Comments

@hessjcg
Copy link
Collaborator

hessjcg commented Nov 28, 2023

K8s starts pod containers in the order they are specified, waiting for the post-start hook of a container to complete before moving to the next one. See Delaying application start until sidecar is ready blog post.

Implementation:

  • Add all proxy containers to the beginning of the the list of pod containers, before all the user-defined containers.
  • Add a postStart hook to the proxy container that calls the /ready hook. This ensures no other containers start until the proxy container is ready.

This will ensure that the proxy container is ready before any other containers are allowed to start in all supported versions of k8s.

@hessjcg hessjcg added type: feature request ‘Nice-to-have’ improvement, new feature or different behavior or design. priority: p2 Moderately-important priority. Fix may not be included in next release. labels Nov 28, 2023
@hessjcg hessjcg changed the title Feature Request: Ordered Startup Feature Request: Proxy containers start before application containers Nov 28, 2023
@manueljishi
Copy link

Hi, we are currently having issues with this, are there any plans on taking up this PR?

@hessjcg
Copy link
Collaborator Author

hessjcg commented Sep 6, 2024

Hi @manueljishi, I think we are going to skip this one and only do #381, which will get the same result.

@manueljishi
Copy link

Perfect @hessjcg thanks a lot!
I will keep an eye on it to see if I can be of any help!

@hessjcg
Copy link
Collaborator Author

hessjcg commented Sep 9, 2024

Closing in favor of #381.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
priority: p2 Moderately-important priority. Fix may not be included in next release. type: feature request ‘Nice-to-have’ improvement, new feature or different behavior or design.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants