Skip to content

Doc on using machine config pool during update #34445

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
Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Doc on using machine config pool during update #34445

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

LalatenduMohanty
Copy link
Member

@LalatenduMohanty LalatenduMohanty commented Jul 9, 2021 •
edited
Loading

OTA Jira card for this documentation: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OTA-410

Signed-off-by: Lalatendu Mohanty [email protected]

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. label Jul 9, 2021
@LalatenduMohanty LalatenduMohanty changed the title Doc on using machine config pool during update [WIP] Doc on using machine config pool during update Jul 9, 2021
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Jul 9, 2021
@netlify
Copy link

netlify bot commented Jul 9, 2021 •
edited
Loading

✔️ Deploy Preview for osdocs ready!

🔨 Explore the source changes: 8e7ab60

🔍 Inspect the deploy log: https://app.netlify.com/sites/osdocs/deploys/6102e936bac85a0008ba8255

😎 Browse the preview: https://deploy-preview-34445--osdocs.netlify.app/openshift-enterprise/latest/updating/update-using-custom-machine-config-pools

@LalatenduMohanty LalatenduMohanty force-pushed the ota-410 branch 11 times, most recently from 39a4b1e to 3400653 Compare July 9, 2021 17:23
@LalatenduMohanty LalatenduMohanty changed the title [WIP] Doc on using machine config pool during update Doc on using machine config pool during update Jul 9, 2021
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot removed the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Jul 9, 2021
@LalatenduMohanty LalatenduMohanty changed the title Doc on using machine config pool during update [WIP] Doc on using machine config pool during update Jul 9, 2021
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Jul 9, 2021
@LalatenduMohanty LalatenduMohanty force-pushed the ota-410 branch 3 times, most recently from 25c2320 to 6065ac4 Compare July 9, 2021 20:32
@sinnykumari
Copy link

Few questions:

  1. Has this been tested completely on a real test cluster?
  2. Since pausing pools can go across multiple maintenance window, how are we going to ensure that it doesn't go beyond the time when kubelet cert expires?

@LalatenduMohanty LalatenduMohanty force-pushed the ota-410 branch 3 times, most recently from 8e988b0 to 3fea62f Compare July 23, 2021 01:43
@jiajliu
Copy link

jiajliu commented Jul 23, 2021 •
edited by openshift-ci bot
Loading

@jiajliu Can you review this as give ACK from QE point of view?

Sure, we will review this doc for ota-410 in v4.9 pre-release test window.

@LalatenduMohanty LalatenduMohanty force-pushed the ota-410 branch 5 times, most recently from f5eb412 to 4daa3c4 Compare July 23, 2021 19:04
@mburke5678 mburke5678 mentioned this pull request Jul 29, 2021
Closed
@sinnykumari
Copy link

Thanks for making all the changes. LGTM

mburke5678
mburke5678 reviewed Aug 2, 2021
View reviewed changes
updating/update-using-custom-machine-config-pools.adoc
----
+
. The machine config operator is then going to reconcile the node to the worker pool configuration. Check the output of `oc get mcp` to make sure the worker pool is updated before going to the next step.
+
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@LalatenduMohanty @sdodson @jiajliu
When I moved the node back to the worker MCP, by removing the label, the oc get mcp command showed the worker nodes at the proper machine count (3), but the custom MCP I created stll showed 1. Is this expected? I expected the custom MCP to show 0.

$oc get mcp
NAME           CONFIG                                                   UPDATED   UPDATING   DEGRADED   MACHINECOUNT   READYMACHINECOUNT   UPDATEDMACHINECOUNT   DEGRADEDMACHINECOUNT   AGE
master         rendered-master-1203f157d053fd987c7cbd91e3fbc0ed         True      False      False      3              3                   3                     0                      61m
mcp-noupdate   rendered-mcp-noupdate-5ad4791166c468f3a35cd16e734c9028   True      False      False      1              1                   1                     0                      21m
worker         rendered-worker-5ad4791166c468f3a35cd16e734c9028         True      False      False      3              3                   3                     0                      61m

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah, the custom MCP should show 0. But the reconciliation takes few minutes. So if you check the output after few minutes it should be zero.

@mburke5678 mburke5678 mentioned this pull request Aug 10, 2021
Merged
@brenton
Copy link

brenton commented Aug 30, 2021

Work is continuing on this documentation as part of this PR: #35420

@brenton brenton closed this Aug 30, 2021
@jiajliu jiajliu mentioned this pull request Sep 2, 2021
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@sdodson sdodson sdodson left review comments

@wking wking wking left review comments

@jianlinliu jianlinliu jianlinliu left review comments

@sinnykumari sinnykumari sinnykumari left review comments

@mburke5678 mburke5678 mburke5678 left review comments

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
8 participants
@LalatenduMohanty @sinnykumari @jiajliu @brenton @sdodson @wking @jianlinliu @mburke5678