-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 668
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
feat(leaderelection): impl leader election for HA Deployment #722
feat(leaderelection): impl leader election for HA Deployment #722
Conversation
Hi @Dentrax. 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. |
1c0fc48
to
998b557
Compare
a25edab
to
01ff31a
Compare
01ff31a
to
475e680
Compare
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.
/ok-to-test
I had mostly nits on docs and logging, but the overall idea looks pretty straightforward. Thanks for the contribution @Dentrax !
@Dentrax forgot to mention this, could you please squash your commits down too? |
81d9a34
to
9abaea2
Compare
@Dentrax @eminaktas would you mind extending the e2e test suite with a test validating only a single instance is active at a time? E.g.
This will be a bit tricky as you will need to invoke |
859c1ae
to
37772be
Compare
We've tried to write a simple test by following your instructions, here is test output:
We also had to put two new policy files since we couldn't pass a
Eventually, we're asserting that only pods from a single namespace are evicted: singleNamespaceEvicted := (podsA == 5 && podsB != 5) || (podsA != 5 && podsB == 5) Thanks, @ingvagabund! I think we've resolved the following above reviews. I'm not sure whether it's the best way to test leader election, but waiting your thoughts. |
acdfeac
to
c3b1ddc
Compare
Re: RBAC, I would have expected the
|
4512e7d
to
474a492
Compare
/retest |
/approve |
474a492
to
b2b7e11
Compare
Few more nits I noticed. Durations are the most important here. We need to set those wisely to reduce the traffic between the descheduler instances and the apiserver. |
b2b7e11
to
8d29275
Compare
Signed-off-by: Furkan <furkan.turkal@trendyol.com> Signed-off-by: eminaktas <eminaktas34@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Emin <emin.aktas@trendyol.com> Co-authored-by: Yasin <yasintaha.erol@trendyol.com>
8d29275
to
0a52af9
Compare
/approve |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: Dentrax, ingvagabund 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 |
/lgtm |
Fixes #720
TODO:
BindLeaderElectionFlags
)os.Hostname
+ UUID)Signed-off-by: Furkan furkan.turkal@trendyol.com
Co-authored-by: Emin emin.aktas@trendyol.com
Co-authored-by: Yasin yasintaha.erol@trendyol.com