|
| 1 | +# KEP-2879: Track ready Pods in Job status |
| 2 | + |
| 3 | +<!-- toc --> |
| 4 | +- [Release Signoff Checklist](#release-signoff-checklist) |
| 5 | +- [Summary](#summary) |
| 6 | +- [Motivation](#motivation) |
| 7 | + - [Goals](#goals) |
| 8 | + - [Non-Goals](#non-goals) |
| 9 | +- [Proposal](#proposal) |
| 10 | + - [Risks and Mitigations](#risks-and-mitigations) |
| 11 | +- [Design Details](#design-details) |
| 12 | + - [API](#api) |
| 13 | + - [Changes to the Job controller](#changes-to-the-job-controller) |
| 14 | + - [Test Plan](#test-plan) |
| 15 | + - [Graduation Criteria](#graduation-criteria) |
| 16 | + - [Alpha](#alpha) |
| 17 | + - [Beta](#beta) |
| 18 | + - [GA](#ga) |
| 19 | + - [Deprecation](#deprecation) |
| 20 | + - [Upgrade / Downgrade Strategy](#upgrade--downgrade-strategy) |
| 21 | + - [Version Skew Strategy](#version-skew-strategy) |
| 22 | +- [Production Readiness Review Questionnaire](#production-readiness-review-questionnaire) |
| 23 | + - [Feature Enablement and Rollback](#feature-enablement-and-rollback) |
| 24 | + - [Rollout, Upgrade and Rollback Planning](#rollout-upgrade-and-rollback-planning) |
| 25 | + - [Monitoring Requirements](#monitoring-requirements) |
| 26 | + - [Dependencies](#dependencies) |
| 27 | + - [Scalability](#scalability) |
| 28 | + - [Troubleshooting](#troubleshooting) |
| 29 | +- [Implementation History](#implementation-history) |
| 30 | +- [Drawbacks](#drawbacks) |
| 31 | +- [Alternatives](#alternatives) |
| 32 | +<!-- /toc --> |
| 33 | + |
| 34 | +## Release Signoff Checklist |
| 35 | + |
| 36 | +Items marked with (R) are required *prior to targeting to a milestone / release*. |
| 37 | + |
| 38 | +- [ ] (R) Enhancement issue in release milestone, which links to KEP dir in [kubernetes/enhancements] (not the initial KEP PR) |
| 39 | +- [x] (R) KEP approvers have approved the KEP status as `implementable` |
| 40 | +- [x] (R) Design details are appropriately documented |
| 41 | +- [ ] (R) Test plan is in place, giving consideration to SIG Architecture and SIG Testing input (including test refactors) |
| 42 | + - [ ] e2e Tests for all Beta API Operations (endpoints) |
| 43 | + - [ ] (R) Ensure GA e2e tests for meet requirements for [Conformance Tests](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/conformance-tests.md) |
| 44 | + - [ ] (R) Minimum Two Week Window for GA e2e tests to prove flake free |
| 45 | +- [ ] (R) Graduation criteria is in place |
| 46 | + - [ ] (R) [all GA Endpoints](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/pull/1806) must be hit by [Conformance Tests](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/conformance-tests.md) |
| 47 | +- [x] (R) Production readiness review completed |
| 48 | +- [x] (R) Production readiness review approved |
| 49 | +- [ ] "Implementation History" section is up-to-date for milestone |
| 50 | +- [ ] User-facing documentation has been created in [kubernetes/website], for publication to [kubernetes.io] |
| 51 | +- [ ] Supporting documentation—e.g., additional design documents, links to mailing list discussions/SIG meetings, relevant PRs/issues, release notes |
| 52 | + |
| 53 | +[kubernetes.io]: https://kubernetes.io/ |
| 54 | +[kubernetes/enhancements]: https://git.k8s.io/enhancements |
| 55 | +[kubernetes/kubernetes]: https://git.k8s.io/kubernetes |
| 56 | +[kubernetes/website]: https://git.k8s.io/website |
| 57 | + |
| 58 | +## Summary |
| 59 | + |
| 60 | +The Job status has a field `active` which counts the number of Job Pods that |
| 61 | +are in `Running` or `Pending` phases. In this KEP, we add a field `ready` that |
| 62 | +counts the number of Job Pods that have a `Ready` condition, with the same |
| 63 | +best effort guarantees as the existing `active` field. |
| 64 | + |
| 65 | +## Motivation |
| 66 | + |
| 67 | +Job Pods can remain in the `Pending` phase for a long time in clusters with |
| 68 | +tight resources and when image pulls take long. Since the `Job.status.active` |
| 69 | +field includes `Pending` Pods, this can give a false impression of progress |
| 70 | +to end users or other controllers. This is more important when the pods serve |
| 71 | +as workers and need to communicate among themselves. |
| 72 | + |
| 73 | +A separate `Job.status.ready` field can provide more information for users |
| 74 | +and controllers, reducing the need to listen to Pod updates themselves. |
| 75 | + |
| 76 | +Note that other workload APIs (such as ReplicaSet and StatefulSet) have a |
| 77 | +similar field: `.status.readyReplicas`. |
| 78 | + |
| 79 | +### Goals |
| 80 | + |
| 81 | +- Add the field `Job.status.ready` that keeps a count of Job Pods with the |
| 82 | + `Ready` condition. |
| 83 | + |
| 84 | +### Non-Goals |
| 85 | + |
| 86 | +- Provide strong guarantees for the accuracy of the count. Due to the |
| 87 | + asynchronous nature of k8s, there are can be more or less Pods currently |
| 88 | + ready than what the count provides. |
| 89 | + |
| 90 | +## Proposal |
| 91 | + |
| 92 | +Add the field `.status.ready` to the Job API. The job controller updates the |
| 93 | +field based on the number of Pods that have the `Ready` condition. |
| 94 | + |
| 95 | +### Risks and Mitigations |
| 96 | + |
| 97 | +During upgrades, a cluster can have apiservers with version skew, or the |
| 98 | +administrator might decide to do a rollback. This can cause: |
| 99 | + |
| 100 | +- Loss of the new API field value |
| 101 | + |
| 102 | + This is acceptable for the first release. The value is only informative: the |
| 103 | + kubernetes control plane doesn't use the value to influence behavior. |
| 104 | + |
| 105 | +- Repeated Job status updates. |
| 106 | + |
| 107 | + If one apiserver populates the value and another apiserver (running an older |
| 108 | + version) drops the field, the job controller might try to update the field |
| 109 | + again, potentially causing subsequent updates. This can be mitigated by only |
| 110 | + updating the field if the job controller is already updating the status due |
| 111 | + to changes in other fields. This check is only necessary in the first release. |
| 112 | + |
| 113 | +For both problems, in the first release, the API documentation, can state that |
| 114 | +the field can remain at zero indefinitely even if pods have been Ready for a long |
| 115 | +time. |
| 116 | + |
| 117 | +## Design Details |
| 118 | + |
| 119 | +### API |
| 120 | + |
| 121 | +```golang |
| 122 | +type JobStatus struct { |
| 123 | + ... |
| 124 | + Active int32 |
| 125 | + Ready int32 // new field |
| 126 | + Succeeded int32 |
| 127 | + Failed int32 |
| 128 | +} |
| 129 | +``` |
| 130 | + |
| 131 | +### Changes to the Job controller |
| 132 | + |
| 133 | +The Job controller already lists the Pods to populate the `active`, `succeeded` |
| 134 | +and `failed` fields. To count `ready` pods, the job controller will filter the |
| 135 | +pods that have the `Ready` condition. |
| 136 | + |
| 137 | +In a first release, the Job controller counts the ready pods and updates the |
| 138 | +field if and only if: |
| 139 | +- The job controller is already updating other Job status fields. |
| 140 | +- The `JobReadyPods` feature gate is enabled. |
| 141 | + |
| 142 | +In the second release, the Job controller updates the field unconditionally. |
| 143 | + |
| 144 | +### Test Plan |
| 145 | + |
| 146 | +- Unit and integration tests covering: |
| 147 | + - Count of ready pods. |
| 148 | + - Not producing updates in the cases described in the design. |
| 149 | +- Verify passing existing E2E and conformance tests for Job. |
| 150 | + |
| 151 | +### Graduation Criteria |
| 152 | + |
| 153 | +#### Alpha |
| 154 | + |
| 155 | +This KEP proposes to skip this stage, for the following reasons: |
| 156 | +- The added calculation is trivial. |
| 157 | +- It is acceptable to report .status.ready as zero in the first release, as |
| 158 | + the value is only informative. |
| 159 | + |
| 160 | +#### Beta |
| 161 | + |
| 162 | +- Ability to completely disable the feature, through a feature gate. The feature |
| 163 | + gate is enabled by default. |
| 164 | + |
| 165 | +In a first release: |
| 166 | + |
| 167 | +- The job controller only fills the field if there are other Job status updates. |
| 168 | +- Unit and integration tests. |
| 169 | + |
| 170 | +In a second release: |
| 171 | + |
| 172 | +- The job controller fills the field whenever the number of ready Pods changes. |
| 173 | + The feature can still be disabled through the feature gate. |
| 174 | + |
| 175 | +#### GA |
| 176 | + |
| 177 | +- Every bug report is fixed. |
| 178 | +- The job controller ignores the feature gate. |
| 179 | + |
| 180 | +#### Deprecation |
| 181 | + |
| 182 | +N/A |
| 183 | + |
| 184 | +### Upgrade / Downgrade Strategy |
| 185 | + |
| 186 | +No changes required for existing cluster to use the enhancement. |
| 187 | + |
| 188 | +### Version Skew Strategy |
| 189 | + |
| 190 | +The feature doesn't affect nodes. |
| 191 | + |
| 192 | +In the first release, a version skew between apiservers might cause the new field |
| 193 | +to remain at zero even if there are Pods ready. |
| 194 | + |
| 195 | +## Production Readiness Review Questionnaire |
| 196 | + |
| 197 | +### Feature Enablement and Rollback |
| 198 | + |
| 199 | +###### How can this feature be enabled / disabled in a live cluster? |
| 200 | + |
| 201 | +- [x] Feature gate (also fill in values in `kep.yaml`) |
| 202 | + - Feature gate name: JobReadyPods |
| 203 | + - Components depending on the feature gate: kube-controller-manager |
| 204 | +- [ ] Other |
| 205 | + - Describe the mechanism: |
| 206 | + - Will enabling / disabling the feature require downtime of the control |
| 207 | + plane? |
| 208 | + - Will enabling / disabling the feature require downtime or reprovisioning |
| 209 | + of a node? (Do not assume `Dynamic Kubelet Config` feature is enabled). |
| 210 | + |
| 211 | +###### Does enabling the feature change any default behavior? |
| 212 | + |
| 213 | +Yes, the Job controller might upgrade the Job status more frequently to |
| 214 | +report ready pods. |
| 215 | + |
| 216 | +###### Can the feature be disabled once it has been enabled (i.e. can we roll back the enablement)? |
| 217 | + |
| 218 | +Yes, the lost of information is acceptable as the field is only informative. |
| 219 | + |
| 220 | +###### What happens if we reenable the feature if it was previously rolled back? |
| 221 | + |
| 222 | +The Job controller will start populating the field again. |
| 223 | + |
| 224 | +###### Are there any tests for feature enablement/disablement? |
| 225 | + |
| 226 | +Yes, at unit and integration level. |
| 227 | + |
| 228 | +### Rollout, Upgrade and Rollback Planning |
| 229 | + |
| 230 | +###### How can a rollout or rollback fail? Can it impact already running workloads? |
| 231 | + |
| 232 | +The field is only informative, it doesn't affect running workloads. |
| 233 | + |
| 234 | +###### What specific metrics should inform a rollback? |
| 235 | + |
| 236 | +N/A |
| 237 | + |
| 238 | +###### Were upgrade and rollback tested? Was the upgrade->downgrade->upgrade path tested? |
| 239 | + |
| 240 | +N/A |
| 241 | + |
| 242 | +###### Is the rollout accompanied by any deprecations and/or removals of features, APIs, fields of API types, flags, etc.? |
| 243 | + |
| 244 | +No |
| 245 | + |
| 246 | +### Monitoring Requirements |
| 247 | + |
| 248 | +###### How can an operator determine if the feature is in use by workloads? |
| 249 | + |
| 250 | +The feature applies to all Jobs, unless the feature gate is disabled. |
| 251 | + |
| 252 | +###### How can someone using this feature know that it is working for their instance? |
| 253 | + |
| 254 | +- [x] API .status |
| 255 | + - Other field: `ready` |
| 256 | + |
| 257 | +###### What are the reasonable SLOs (Service Level Objectives) for the enhancement? |
| 258 | + |
| 259 | +The 99% percentile of Job status updates below 1s, when the controller doesn't |
| 260 | +create new Pods or tracks finishing Pods. |
| 261 | + |
| 262 | +###### What are the SLIs (Service Level Indicators) an operator can use to determine the health of the service? |
| 263 | + |
| 264 | +- [x] Metrics |
| 265 | + - Metric name: `job_sync_duration_seconds`, `job_sync_total`. |
| 266 | + |
| 267 | +###### Are there any missing metrics that would be useful to have to improve observability of this feature? |
| 268 | + |
| 269 | +No. |
| 270 | + |
| 271 | +### Dependencies |
| 272 | + |
| 273 | +###### Does this feature depend on any specific services running in the cluster? |
| 274 | + |
| 275 | +No. |
| 276 | + |
| 277 | +### Scalability |
| 278 | + |
| 279 | +###### Will enabling / using this feature result in any new API calls? |
| 280 | + |
| 281 | + |
| 282 | +- API: PUT Job/status |
| 283 | + |
| 284 | + Estimated throughput: at most one API call for each Job Pod reaching Ready |
| 285 | + condition. |
| 286 | + |
| 287 | + Originating component: job-controller |
| 288 | + |
| 289 | +###### Will enabling / using this feature result in introducing new API types? |
| 290 | + |
| 291 | +No. |
| 292 | + |
| 293 | +###### Will enabling / using this feature result in any new calls to the cloud provider? |
| 294 | + |
| 295 | +No. |
| 296 | + |
| 297 | +###### Will enabling / using this feature result in increasing size or count of the existing API objects? |
| 298 | + |
| 299 | +- API: Job/status |
| 300 | + |
| 301 | + Estimated increase in size: New field of less than 10B. |
| 302 | + |
| 303 | +###### Will enabling / using this feature result in increasing time taken by any operations covered by existing SLIs/SLOs? |
| 304 | + |
| 305 | +No. |
| 306 | + |
| 307 | +###### Will enabling / using this feature result in non-negligible increase of resource usage (CPU, RAM, disk, IO, ...) in any components? |
| 308 | + |
| 309 | +No. |
| 310 | + |
| 311 | +### Troubleshooting |
| 312 | + |
| 313 | +###### How does this feature react if the API server and/or etcd is unavailable? |
| 314 | + |
| 315 | +No change from existing behavior of the Job controller. |
| 316 | + |
| 317 | +###### What are other known failure modes? |
| 318 | + |
| 319 | +- When the cluster has apiservers with skewed versions, the `Job.status.ready` |
| 320 | + might remain zero. |
| 321 | + |
| 322 | +###### What steps should be taken if SLOs are not being met to determine the problem? |
| 323 | + |
| 324 | +1. Check reachability between kube-controller-manager and apiserver. |
| 325 | +1. If the `job_sync_duration_seconds` is too high, check for the number |
| 326 | + of requests in apiserver coming from the kube-system/job-controller service |
| 327 | + account. Consider increasing the number of inflight requests for |
| 328 | + apiserver or tuning [API priority and fairness](https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/cluster-administration/flow-control/) |
| 329 | + to give more priority for the job-controller requests. |
| 330 | +1. If the steps above are insufficient disable the `JobTrackingWithFinalizers` |
| 331 | + feature gate from apiserver and kube-controller-manager and [report an issue](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues). |
| 332 | + |
| 333 | +## Implementation History |
| 334 | + |
| 335 | +- 2021-08-19: Proposed KEP starting in beta status. |
| 336 | + |
| 337 | +## Drawbacks |
| 338 | + |
| 339 | +The only drawback is an increase in API calls. However, this is capped by |
| 340 | +the number of times a Pod flips ready status. This is usually once for each |
| 341 | +Pod created. |
| 342 | + |
| 343 | +## Alternatives |
| 344 | + |
| 345 | +- Add `Job.status.running`, counting Pods with `Running` phase. The `Running` |
| 346 | + phase doesn't take into account preparation work before the worker is ready |
| 347 | + to accept connections. The `Ready` condition is configurable through a |
| 348 | + readiness probe. |
0 commit comments