[release-4.20] OCPBUGS-55217: Throttle resourcesynccontroller on pairs with dual writers. #882
Conversation
Writes from the instance of resourcesynccontroller in the operator can contend with writes from the recovery sidecar's instance of the same controller. This is a preexisting issue, and the controller doesn't have an effective way to limit resync frequency. Adding some fixed latency to each sync in this way sets an upper bound on the churn rate when the two instances get into a feedback cycle. The separate issues that can create a feedback cycle (e.g. the resourcesynccontroller degraded operator status condition is shared by both instances) should be separately addressed "soon".
|
/approve |
|
/label backport-risk-assessed |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
backport-risk-assessed
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
approved
|
/lgtm |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: benluddy, 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 |
benluddy
changed the title
openshift-ci-robot
added
jira/valid-reference
|
@benluddy: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-55217, which is invalid:
Comment The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker. In response to this:
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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
|
/cherry-pick release-4.19 |
|
@benluddy: once the present PR merges, I will cherry-pick it on top of In response to this:
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-sigs/prow repository. |
|
/jira refresh |
|
@dgoodwin: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-55217, which is invalid:
Comment In response to this:
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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
|
/test e2e-aws-ovn-upgrade |
|
/jira refresh |
openshift-ci-robot
added
the
jira/valid-bug
|
@davegord: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-55217, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state. 7 validation(s) were run on this bug
Requesting review from QA contact: In response to this:
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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
openshift-ci-robot
removed
the
jira/invalid-bug
|
/verified bypass |
openshift-ci-robot
added
the
verified
|
@dgoodwin: The In response to this:
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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
|
/override ci/prow/e2e-aws-ovn-upgrade https://prow.ci.openshift.org/view/gs/test-platform-results/pr-logs/pull/openshift_cluster-kube-controller-manager-operator/882/pull-ci-openshift-cluster-kube-controller-manager-operator-release-4.20-e2e-aws-ovn-upgrade/1971336188816003072 has passed, still stuck in deprovision |
|
@dgoodwin: Overrode contexts on behalf of dgoodwin: ci/prow/e2e-aws-ovn-upgrade In response to this:
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-sigs/prow repository. |
openshift-merge-bot
bot
merged commit 5a7da72
into
openshift:release-4.20
|
@benluddy: Jira Issue OCPBUGS-55217: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged:
Jira Issue OCPBUGS-55217 has been moved to the MODIFIED state. In response to this:
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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
|
@benluddy: new pull request created: #884 In response to this:
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-sigs/prow repository. |
|
Fix included in accepted release 4.20.0-0.nightly-2025-09-27-153025 |
10 participants
Writes from the instance of resourcesynccontroller in the operator can contend with writes from the recovery sidecar's instance of the same controller. This is a preexisting issue, and the controller doesn't have an effective way to limit resync frequency. Adding some fixed latency to each sync in this way sets an upper bound on the churn rate when the two instances get into a feedback cycle.
The separate issues that can create a feedback cycle (e.g. the resourcesynccontroller degraded operator status condition is shared by both instances) should be separately addressed "soon".
#881