Skip to content
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

Removes control-plane affinity from Prometheus #1625

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 23, 2024

Conversation

JosephSalisbury
Copy link
Contributor

@JosephSalisbury JosephSalisbury commented May 21, 2024

Towards https://github.com/giantswarm/giantswarm/issues/30772

Control plane nodes have the NoSchedule taint, which the Prometheus pods do not tolerate, so this affinity was unnecessary, and caused issues with Karpenter, e.g:

{"level":"DEBUG","time":"2024-05-21T11:12:03.942Z","logger":"controller.provisioner","message":"ignoring pod, label node-role.kubernetes.io/control-plane is restricted; specify a well known label: [karpenter.k8s.aws/instance-accelerator-count karpenter.k8s.aws/instance-accelerator-manufacturer karpenter.k8s.aws/instance-accelerator-name karpenter.k8s.aws/instance-category karpenter.k8s.aws/instance-cpu karpenter.k8s.aws/instance-encryption-in-transit-supported karpenter.k8s.aws/instance-family karpenter.k8s.aws/instance-generation karpenter.k8s.aws/instance-gpu-count karpenter.k8s.aws/instance-gpu-manufacturer karpenter.k8s.aws/instance-gpu-memory karpenter.k8s.aws/instance-gpu-name karpenter.k8s.aws/instance-hypervisor karpenter.k8s.aws/instance-local-nvme karpenter.k8s.aws/instance-memory karpenter.k8s.aws/instance-network-bandwidth karpenter.k8s.aws/instance-pods karpenter.k8s.aws/instance-size karpenter.sh/capacity-type karpenter.sh/provisioner-name kubernetes.io/arch kubernetes.io/os node.kubernetes.io/instance-type node.kubernetes.io/windows-build topology.kubernetes.io/region topology.kubernetes.io/zone], or a custom label that does not use a restricted domain: [k8s.io karpenter.k8s.aws karpenter.sh kubernetes.io]","commit":"34d50bf-dirty","pod":"golem-prometheus/prometheus-golem-0"}

Checklist

I have:

  • Described why this change is being introduced
  • Separated out refactoring/reformatting in a dedicated PR
  • Updated changelog in CHANGELOG.md

@JosephSalisbury JosephSalisbury self-assigned this May 21, 2024
@JosephSalisbury JosephSalisbury requested a review from a team as a code owner May 21, 2024 13:21
@JosephSalisbury
Copy link
Contributor Author

oh yeah tests lol

@QuentinBisson
Copy link
Contributor

go tests ./... -update should be fine :)

Copy link
Member

@TheoBrigitte TheoBrigitte left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@JosephSalisbury JosephSalisbury merged commit 4947e28 into master May 23, 2024
5 checks passed
@JosephSalisbury JosephSalisbury deleted the remove-prometheus-affinity branch May 23, 2024 08:58
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants