Skip to content

Conversation

@hardys
Copy link

@hardys hardys commented Jul 24, 2019

This series enables Ironic on the bootstrap VM (Issue #2060), based on work first started via openshift-metal3/kni-installer#100

Since this also reworks our image handling to use the internal image references, it also completes issue #2064 and I think may complete issue #2037

Note this depends on #2061

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Jul 24, 2019
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. label Jul 24, 2019
@hardys
Copy link
Author

hardys commented Jul 24, 2019

Note - I'm not sure if the increase to 6G is still needed, I added it when I was having issues with libpod (since resolved via #1941) - I need to re-test with the default memory and prove everything still works, if so I'll drop that patch from the series.

@stbenjam
Copy link
Member

/label platform/baremetal

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the platform/baremetal IPI bare metal hosts platform label Jul 24, 2019
@hardys
Copy link
Author

hardys commented Jul 24, 2019

/label platform/baremetal

Note that the metal3 CI results on this PR won't be valid, because we need corresponding dev-scripts changes, I'll test it via openshift-metal3/dev-scripts#642 when it's fully working locally (still debugging some issues atm).

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We're not supporting survey input right now, but support via install-config makes sense. If not specified in install-config, we'd just use the default (and not any survey input)

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I removed all the FIXME comments for now, and added a reference to #2091

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm not clear on what the fix is here - change ironic to only bind to the provisioning interface? ensure the installer is only using that IP?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ah thanks for the reminder, yeah the fix is to bind only on the provisioning nic, but I couldn't do that previously because terraform was accessing ironic on the host via the baremetal bridge - I'll re-test with metal3-io/ironic-image#56 locally as I think it should work now that this series switches terraform to reference the BootstrapProvisioningIP.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I removed the FIXME comments for now, added a link to #2091 and will follow-up wrt the bind IP question via update of the ironic image (which can only really happen after this initial integration lands I think).

hardys pushed a commit to hardys/dev-scripts that referenced this pull request Jul 24, 2019
@metal3ci
Copy link

Build FAILURE, see build http://10.8.144.11:8080/job/dev-tools/929/

@metal3ci
Copy link

Build FAILURE, see build http://10.8.144.11:8080/job/dev-tools/930/

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

looks like there's an alignment issue here

@metal3ci
Copy link

Build FAILURE, see build http://10.8.144.11:8080/job/dev-tools/938/

@hardys hardys force-pushed the issue_2060 branch 3 times, most recently from d3c3b18 to c3d38f7 Compare July 25, 2019 17:03
@metal3ci
Copy link

Build FAILURE, see build http://10.8.144.11:8080/job/dev-tools/940/

@metal3ci
Copy link

Build FAILURE, see build http://10.8.144.11:8080/job/dev-tools/942/

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Jul 25, 2019
Discussion during code review indicates this is not required
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot removed the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Aug 13, 2019
@hardys
Copy link
Author

hardys commented Aug 13, 2019

Ok I addressed all comments except the validation of *ProvisioningIP, perhaps we can address that via a follow-up ref #2210 ?

@eparis
Copy link
Member

eparis commented Aug 13, 2019

This is ok to merge without a BZ if we believe it has met the typical engineering review bar for such a PR.
/hold cancel

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Aug 13, 2019
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

nit: and the

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

nit, this is used for Machine objects. in case of DR.. even master machines should be recreate able.. so I think we should drop this from the API.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ack yes it could also be used to rebuild master machines, will update

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can't have terraform in public API docs. that are used to create the control-plane machines

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ack will do

These were unclear so improve the clarity of the comments
@hardys
Copy link
Author

hardys commented Aug 13, 2019

@abhinavdahiya thanks for the prompt review, latest comments addressed

@abhinavdahiya
Copy link
Contributor

/lgtm

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Aug 13, 2019
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: abhinavdahiya, hardys, russellb

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 /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Aug 13, 2019
@metal3ci
Copy link

Build FAILURE, see build http://10.8.144.11:8080/job/dev-tools/1036/

@metal3ci
Copy link

Build FAILURE, see build http://10.8.144.11:8080/job/dev-tools/1037/

@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit 8f972b4 into openshift:master Aug 13, 2019
@stbenjam stbenjam deleted the issue_2060 branch August 13, 2019 20:35
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@hardys: The following tests failed, say /retest to rerun them all:

Test name Commit Details Rerun command
ci/prow/e2e-gcp b4e44c196d214e9179d1438dd5acde98f142e4d3 link /test e2e-gcp
ci/prow/e2e-azure b4e44c196d214e9179d1438dd5acde98f142e4d3 link /test e2e-azure
ci/prow/e2e-openstack a9c7a32 link /test e2e-openstack
ci/prow/e2e-aws-scaleup-rhel7 a9c7a32 link /test e2e-aws-scaleup-rhel7

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR.

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/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

hardys pushed a commit to hardys/installer that referenced this pull request Oct 1, 2019
As mentioned in openshift#2079 we should validate these IPs as they must
be on a different subnet than the machine CIDR, these IPs are used
to configure a dedicated network for provisioning machines via pxe.

Closes: openshift#2210
jhixson74 pushed a commit to jhixson74/installer that referenced this pull request Dec 6, 2019
As mentioned in openshift#2079 we should validate these IPs as they must
be on a different subnet than the machine CIDR, these IPs are used
to configure a dedicated network for provisioning machines via pxe.

Closes: openshift#2210
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. platform/baremetal IPI bare metal hosts platform size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants