-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.5k
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
KEP-2008: Provide details about additional checkpoint/restore use cases #4305
Conversation
Hi @adrianreber. Thanks for your PR. I'm waiting for a kubernetes member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the I understand the commands that are listed here. 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. |
/ok-to-test |
@mikebrow as discussed I tried to update the KEP with different possible use cases. PTAL. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
additional future stories read well... not obvious if they are to be officially supported cases or additional will not be supported cases
Did you want to add more details to the forensics story? Including a scenario how/why kubelet needs to provide garbage collection / manage which are garbage collected..
Similarly, for cli enablement kubernetes/kubernetes#120898 (comment) do you want to go over the expansion of this kubelet endpoint to cover kubectl enablement, mention how a user would use kubectl in these stories.. and probably add the management (manual and automatic .. CRUD) options?
843dd61
to
3ea658e
Compare
@mikebrow Thanks
Added a paragraph that future stories currently already can be used with the existing implementation, but that additional support for a more user friendly implementations can be implemented. Not very concrete, but acknowledged that additional support can be added.
I added a paragraph about checkpoint archive management. That is might be different depending on the use case but I gave three examples how it could be implemented.
I mentioned my kubectl PR in the Future Enhancements section. PTAL. |
3ea658e
to
b23fff3
Compare
@rst0git Thanks for the suggestions and the patch. Applied. |
@mikebrow do you have any additional comments? Any recommendations how to move this forward? |
Co-Authored-By: Radostin Stoyanov <radostin.stoyanov@eng.ox.ac.uk> Signed-off-by: Adrian Reber <areber@redhat.com>
b23fff3
to
5d237de
Compare
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: adrianreber The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
@adrianreber any particular reason this is separate from #4288, can we get both PRs merged as one? |
This is again complicated. My initial approach to get this feature in Kubernetes around 2019 was to focus on container migration. Then we came up with a much simpler way using the "Forensic Container Checkpointing" story. So we worked on that and it got merged. One of the steps to get it from Alpha to Beta at that time was at least one container engine should implement the new CRI API calls. CRI-O did. When trying to graduate from Alpha to Beta the feedback from SIG-Node was that containerd should also implement it. From containerd's side I was told that the current KEP focussing on "Forensic Container Checkpointing" feels incomplete and all possible use cases should be described in the KEP. So now I have a Alpha to Beta graduation KEP which depends on containerd support. containerd wants to merge the The Alpha to Beta graduation is full of discussions and adding additional discussions about use cases seems to complicate everything even more. If everybody is happy with the changes of this PR I can include it in the other PR. I don't know. |
I'll defer to sig-node leads about that decision, it's theirs call about merging, I'm asking only from PRR review perspective. |
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all PRs. This bot triages PRs according to the following rules:
You can:
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community. /lifecycle stale |
/remove-lifecycle stale |
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all PRs. This bot triages PRs according to the following rules:
You can:
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community. /lifecycle stale |
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough active contributors to adequately respond to all PRs. This bot triages PRs according to the following rules:
You can:
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community. /lifecycle rotten |
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough active contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs. This bot triages PRs according to the following rules:
You can:
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community. /close |
@k8s-triage-robot: Closed this PR. 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. |
One-line PR description: Provide details about additional checkpoint/restore use cases
Issue link: Forensic Container Checkpointing #2008