-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.6k
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
disable localStorageCapacityIsolation for rootless in >= v1.25.0-alpha.3.440+0064010cddfa00 #2846
disable localStorageCapacityIsolation for rootless in >= v1.25.0-alpha.3.440+0064010cddfa00 #2846
Conversation
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: BenTheElder 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 |
c744441
to
05f1472
Compare
Aside: Looks like I just spotted a kubeadm bug with that warning, should say 1.25.0 is not released yet. Will circle back to that in the morning. Next up: making this PR test from kubernetes/kubernetes#111513 |
https://prow.k8s.io/view/gs/kubernetes-jenkins/pr-logs/pull/kubernetes-sigs_kind/2846/pull-kind-e2e-kubernetes/1553988593934929920 is testing with the kubernetes PR branch (no merging, since it needs rebasing anyhow, just whatever code is in that branch) |
TODO next: temporarily patch the github actions with rootless CI to clone the Kubernetes PR |
7866500
to
3e4d140
Compare
3b6bd98
to
c5e390a
Compare
I have the build and test in rootless-on-vagrant-on-macOS "working" but it times out. I think we're going to need to build an image for kubernetes/kubernetes#111513, push it somewhere, and test from that, unfortunately. |
OK we have a rootless CI result with the new option in your PR @jingxu97 https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/kind/runs/7622572978?check_suite_focus=true we should double check that it fails without the option set. |
8d42c23
to
4e35e9b
Compare
dropped testing commits, will test further in #2851 we should not merge this until kubernetes/kubernetes#111513 merges, since the new field is not guaranteed yet. |
tested and confirmed we still need this in #2851 (comment) |
4e35e9b
to
a54a8da
Compare
a54a8da
to
4f47894
Compare
….3.440+0064010cddfa00
4f47894
to
968c842
Compare
/assign @aojea |
@@ -537,6 +539,7 @@ evictionHard: | |||
{{ range $key := .SortedFeatureGateKeys }} | |||
"{{ $key }}": {{ index $.FeatureGates $key }} | |||
{{end}}{{end}} | |||
localStorageCapacityIsolation: {{if .DisableLocalStorageCapacityIsolation}}false{{else}}true{{end}} |
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.
localStorageCapacityIsolation: {{if .DisableLocalStorageCapacityIsolation}}false{{else}}true{{end}} | |
{{if .DisableLocalStorageCapacityIsolation}}localStorageCapacityIsolation: false{{end}} |
This may look cleaner and less likely to hit an issue with an older version of kubelet that is unaware of localStorageCapacityIsolation
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.
agree
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.
Agree on cleaner but the unknown fields will never reach kubelet, kubeadm will drop any unknown field because it defaults kubelet config itself. We’ve run this patch with and without the Kubernetes patch.
/lgtm I prefer to be explicit though and use Akihiro's option |
Will follow-up PR when I get back to a computer after the morning dog walk 🙃, I agree, would’ve been fine to update before merge 😅 |
ok that took me a bit but filed #2861 |
required for kubernetes/kubernetes#111513 + rootless, see discussion from here for context kubernetes/enhancements#361 (comment)