Currently, the updateStrategy for Route-agent pods is set to RollingUpdate
with maxUnavailable as 1. Because of this, when the route-agent DaemonSet
is updated, the Pods are updated one after the other. While the rolling
update strategy is good for user-facing services, for route-agent DaemonSet
its not the most suitable one as it takes time for all the route-agent pods
to be updated in a large cluster.
Ideally, it would have been great if "Recreate" updateStrategy was supported
for DaemonSets, but unfortunately K8s does not support it. But an alternate
way to achieve something similar is to configure rollingUpdate.maxUnavailable
to 100% so that the DaemonSet controller can update all the route-agent Pods
in a single go.
https://kubernetes.io/docs/tasks/manage-daemon/update-daemon-set/#daemonset-update-strategy
Fixes issue: https://github.com/submariner-io/submariner/issues/734
Signed-Off-by: Sridhar Gaddam <sgaddam@redhat.com>
In one of the earlier PRs, we modified the terminationGracePeriodSeconds
to 10 secs. However, its seen that this is causing more CI failures
during e2e redundancy tests. Ideally, once the Pods are terminated,
it should cleanup itself ASAP but it is seen that SM Pods are sometimes
taking time to exit and during this Period since there is no active SM
Pod running, this is triggering some failures.
Until we figure out the exact reason why the Pods are taking time for
cleanup, this PR reduces the terminationGracePeriodSeconds.
This issue would be properly addressed via
https://github.com/submariner-io/submariner/issues/694
Signed-Off-by: Sridhar Gaddam <sgaddam@redhat.com>
* Update versioning and image repositories
Update helm charts to follow the submariner versioning,
and include the image repositories by default.
Signed-off-by: Miguel Angel Ajo <majopela@redhat.com>
* Update final version
Signed-off-by: Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo <majopela@redhat.com>
In K8s the default termination grace period for a Pod is 30
secs. However, for Submariner Pods, we were configuring this as
0 secs, because of which, cleanup was not happening in a
consistent manner and we are seeing failures in CI jobs.
This PR modifies the terminationGracePeriodSeconds to 10 secs.
Along with this change, it also uses the proper namespace of
submariner in the excluded namespaces.
Fixes issue: https://github.com/submariner-io/submariner-charts/issues/39
Signed-off-by: Sridhar Gaddam <sgaddam@redhat.com>
Both iptables and nftables use netfilter framework in the kernel for
packet filtering. Many distributions are moving in the direction of
using nftables over iptables. Although, nftables uses a new command
line utility (named nft), starting from iptables >=1.8, it uses
nftables under the hood while continuing to support the same iptables
syntax from the user.
Quoting from Dan's comment [#]
"In iptables 1.8, the maintainers have "deprecated" the classic ip_tables:
the iptables tool now does userspace translation from the legacy UI/UX,
and uses nf_tables under the hood. So, the commands look and feel the
same, but they're now programming a different kernel subsystem.
The problem arises when you mix and match invocations of iptables 1.6
(the previous stable) and 1.8 on the same machine, because although they
look identical, they're programming different kernel subsystems.
Empirically, this causes weird and wonderful things to happen - things
like if you trace a packet coming from a pod, you see it flowing through
both ip_tables and nf_tables, but even if both accept the packet, it then
vanishes entirely and never gets forwarded"
So, as long as we are programming either nf_tables or iptables, we would
not have any issues. Currently, there is no easy way to identify what type
of rules are programmed on the host. This patch follows the same approach
(as described here [*]) that is taken in OpenShift where the host file
system is mounted inside the docker container and iptables utility on the
host is exec'ed for programming any firewall rules.
[#] https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/71305#issuecomment-448052889
[*] https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/71305#issuecomment-521978797
Sridhar GaddamandMiguel Angel Ajo Pelayo
Miguel Angel Ajo PelayoandGitHub
Dmitry Groisman
Chris Kim