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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Widen the tolerations of kuberouter #9547

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 11, 2020
Merged

Widen the tolerations of kuberouter #9547

merged 1 commit into from
Jul 11, 2020

Conversation

johngmyers
Copy link
Member

None of the other CNI DaemonSets pay attention to taints.

Fixes #9530

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. label Jul 10, 2020
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added area/addons size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Jul 10, 2020
hakman
hakman requested changes Jul 10, 2020
View reviewed changes
upup/models/cloudup/resources/addons/networking.kuberouter/k8s-1.12.yaml.template
- effect: NoSchedule
key: node.kubernetes.io/not-ready
operator: Exists
- operator: Exists
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think we should go with what Weave has, which seems good enough. As both have similar main contributors could be easily accepted as a patch in upstream.
https://github.com/kubernetes/kops/blob/master/upup/models/cloudup/resources/addons/networking.weave/k8s-1.12.yaml.template#L251

Suggested change
- operator: Exists
- effect: NoSchedule
operator: Exists
- effect: NoExecute
operator: Exists
- key: CriticalAddonsOnly
operator: Exists

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't see the practical difference between this and what Weave has. And the CriticalAddonsOnly one appears to be obsolete, replaced by the system-node-critical priorityClassName.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

There is no practical difference from my point of view either, just easier to explain a PR for upstream.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The more succinct version seems clear enough. I'd suggest leading with that for an upstream PR.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

OK

@hakman
Copy link
Member

hakman commented Jul 10, 2020

/retest

2 similar comments
@hakman
Copy link
Member

hakman commented Jul 10, 2020

/retest

@johngmyers
Copy link
Member Author

/retest

@hakman
Copy link
Member

hakman commented Jul 10, 2020

Probably was not such a good idea to enable testing for kube-router in PRs...
The issues happen probably because of the k8s version changes.

@johngmyers
Copy link
Member Author

How can we avoid PRs that break CNIs? Should we have a separate set of CNI presubmits with a stable Kubernetes version?

@hakman hakman mentioned this pull request Jul 11, 2020
Merged
@hakman
Copy link
Member

hakman commented Jul 11, 2020

/retest
/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jul 11, 2020
@justinsb
Copy link
Member

Let's get this merged. This is particularly good because we want to replace the term "master" with more inclusive language. The node selector labels may be trickier, however.

@justinsb
Copy link
Member

/approve
/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: johngmyers, justinsb

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 /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Jul 11, 2020
@johngmyers
Copy link
Member Author

/retest

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit 1a903f6 into kubernetes:master Jul 11, 2020
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added this to the v1.19 milestone Jul 11, 2020
@johngmyers johngmyers deleted the kuberouter-toleration branch July 11, 2020 22:17
@hakman hakman mentioned this pull request Jul 13, 2020
Merged
k8s-ci-robot added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 13, 2020
@k8s-ci-robot
Merge pull request #9557 from hakman/automated-cherry-pick-of-#9512-#…
ccdf9ef 
…9547-upstream-release-1.18

Automated cherry pick of #9512: Update kube-router to v1.0.0 #9547: Widen the tolerations of kuberouter
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@hakman hakman hakman requested changes

@mikesplain mikesplain Awaiting requested review from mikesplain

@rdrgmnzs rdrgmnzs Awaiting requested review from rdrgmnzs

Assignees

@justinsb justinsb

@hakman hakman

Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. area/addons cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
v1.19
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

CNI not ready on particular instance group
4 participants
@johngmyers @hakman @justinsb @k8s-ci-robot