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

Don't consider Crashloopbackoff pods as part of PDB #684

Open
himanshu-kun opened this issue Feb 28, 2022 · 2 comments
Open

Don't consider Crashloopbackoff pods as part of PDB #684

himanshu-kun opened this issue Feb 28, 2022 · 2 comments
Labels
area/usability Usability related kind/enhancement Enhancement, improvement, extension lifecycle/rotten Nobody worked on this for 12 months (final aging stage) needs/planning Needs (more) planning with other MCM maintainers priority/1 Priority (lower number equals higher priority)

Comments

@himanshu-kun
Copy link
Contributor

How to categorize this issue?

/area performance
/area robustness
/area usability
/kind enhancement
/priority 3

What would you like to be added:
Currently upstream treats Crashloopbackoff pods as Unavailable and so if a PDB is configured with maxUnavailable=1 with 2 pods , 1 pod Pending and other Crashloopbackoff, then the pod eviction request is denied for such pod and node draining can't proceed.
There is a discussion upstream to deal with this kubernetes/kubernetes#72320 and a PR to ignore Crashloopbackoff pods from PDB is raised kubernetes/kubernetes#105296

Testing is required after the PR gets merged and MCM starts using the corresponding k8s version
Why is this needed:
So that MCM draining is not stuck till drainTimeout for CrashLoopbackoff pods with PDB.

@himanshu-kun himanshu-kun added the kind/enhancement Enhancement, improvement, extension label Feb 28, 2022
@gardener-robot gardener-robot added area/performance Performance (across all domains, such as control plane, networking, storage, etc.) related area/robustness Robustness, reliability, resilience related area/usability Usability related priority/3 Priority (lower number equals higher priority) labels Feb 28, 2022
@himanshu-kun himanshu-kun changed the title Don't consider Crashloop backoff pods as part of PDB Don't consider Crashloopbackoff pods as part of PDB Feb 28, 2022
@gardener-robot gardener-robot added the lifecycle/stale Nobody worked on this for 6 months (will further age) label Aug 28, 2022
@himanshu-kun
Copy link
Contributor Author

Post grooming discussion

The onus is on the customer now to configure the PDB in a way which allows to drain the CrashLoopBackoff pods also .
This PR introduced spec.unhealthyPodEvictionPolicy recently. It is currently in alpha and needs to be enabled via feature gate PDBUnhealthyPodEvictionPolicy.

We need to update the gardener docs after testing this feature, to tell the customers how to do use this. Also need to update the DOD playbook for operators.

@himanshu-kun himanshu-kun added priority/1 Priority (lower number equals higher priority) needs/planning Needs (more) planning with other MCM maintainers and removed priority/3 Priority (lower number equals higher priority) area/performance Performance (across all domains, such as control plane, networking, storage, etc.) related area/robustness Robustness, reliability, resilience related lifecycle/stale Nobody worked on this for 6 months (will further age) labels Feb 23, 2023
@gardener-robot gardener-robot added the lifecycle/stale Nobody worked on this for 6 months (will further age) label Nov 2, 2023
@timuthy
Copy link
Member

timuthy commented Nov 16, 2023

FYI: gardener/gardener#8821

@gardener-robot gardener-robot added lifecycle/rotten Nobody worked on this for 12 months (final aging stage) and removed lifecycle/stale Nobody worked on this for 6 months (will further age) labels Jul 25, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
area/usability Usability related kind/enhancement Enhancement, improvement, extension lifecycle/rotten Nobody worked on this for 12 months (final aging stage) needs/planning Needs (more) planning with other MCM maintainers priority/1 Priority (lower number equals higher priority)
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants