-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6.6k
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
[containerd] Limit number of open files per container #9319
[containerd] Limit number of open files per container #9319
Conversation
Hi @fungusakafungus. Thanks for your PR. I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the I understand the commands that are listed here. 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. |
71e697d
to
bee3544
Compare
Very useful test failures. This would break every cluster! (as it just did with ours) |
bee3544
to
d3632bd
Compare
by setting a default runtime spec with a patch for RLIMIT_NOFILE. - Introduces containerd_base_runtime_spec_rlimit_nofile. - Generates base_runtime_spec on-the-fly, to use the containerd version of the node.
7ee8c75
to
03274aa
Compare
Fixed and ready for review. The result can be seen in any new pod with a shell like this:
CI was broken because the |
To the default limit of open files of 16,384: |
/ok-to-test |
Thanks for explaining the reason of the default value. /approve |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
/lgtm
@fungusakafungus Thank you, seems like a nice way to do it!
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: floryut, fungusakafungus, oomichi 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:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
…bernetes-sigs#9319) by setting a default runtime spec with a patch for RLIMIT_NOFILE. - Introduces containerd_base_runtime_spec_rlimit_nofile. - Generates base_runtime_spec on-the-fly, to use the containerd version of the node.
…bernetes-sigs#9319) by setting a default runtime spec with a patch for RLIMIT_NOFILE. - Introduces containerd_base_runtime_spec_rlimit_nofile. - Generates base_runtime_spec on-the-fly, to use the containerd version of the node.
…bernetes-sigs#9319) by setting a default runtime spec with a patch for RLIMIT_NOFILE. - Introduces containerd_base_runtime_spec_rlimit_nofile. - Generates base_runtime_spec on-the-fly, to use the containerd version of the node.
…bernetes-sigs#9319) by setting a default runtime spec with a patch for RLIMIT_NOFILE. - Introduces containerd_base_runtime_spec_rlimit_nofile. - Generates base_runtime_spec on-the-fly, to use the containerd version of the node.
…bernetes-sigs#9319) by setting a default runtime spec with a patch for RLIMIT_NOFILE. - Introduces containerd_base_runtime_spec_rlimit_nofile. - Generates base_runtime_spec on-the-fly, to use the containerd version of the node. (cherry picked from commit 5a8cf82)
by setting a default runtime spec with a patch for RLIMIT_NOFILE.
Introduces containerd_base_runtime_spec_rlimit_nofile, with default of 16384
Slightly more aggressive version of #9302
containerd_base_runtime_spec_rlimit_nofile: 16384
This is the version I would use in production.
What type of PR is this?
/kind feature
What this PR does / why we need it:
See #9302
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: