OTA-962: Duration of migration to multi-arch #1690
Conversation
|
@hongkailiu: This pull request references OTA-962 which is a valid jira issue. Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the story to target the "4.18.0" version, but no target version was set. 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
added
the
jira/valid-reference
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
do-not-merge/work-in-progress
hongkailiu
force-pushed
the
OTA-962
branch
8 times, most recently
from
837c46a to
b4b8d48
Compare
hongkailiu
force-pushed
the
OTA-962
branch
5 times, most recently
from
44fb468 to
35465c8
Compare
hongkailiu
changed the title
hongkailiu
force-pushed
the
OTA-962
branch
3 times, most recently
from
4601e1d to
2174b1e
Compare
hongkailiu
force-pushed
the
OTA-962
branch
3 times, most recently
from
430e8b3 to
db78e02
Compare
hongkailiu
changed the title
openshift-ci
bot
removed
the
do-not-merge/work-in-progress
| where the value is [the image pull specification of an OCP release payload image](https://hypershift-docs.netlify.app/reference/api/#hypershift.openshift.io/v1beta1.Release). | ||
|
|
||
| The MCO does not run on a hosted cluster and thus our proposal in this enhancement makes no improvement (or regression) for migration of a hosted cluster to multi-arch. Currently there is no way to discover if a hosted cluster is ready to serve a cross-arch node pool. The requests are mainly from the users of standalone clusters at the moment. When hosted cluster users desire the improvement, we can work with the HyperShift team for a solution. | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
cc @jeffdyoung this might be needed sooner than later as HCP is in the process of using multi payload as the default
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is already the case. All new ROSA HCP clusters are multi-arch by default. ARO HCP is planning to do this as well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do I understand this correct?
- Migration of existing hosted clusters from ROSA to multi-arch has done already. The new ones are multi-arch by default.
- ARO will catch up with ROSA soon.
Considering ROSA has done it without our fix, ARO is expected to be done smoothly as well.
Then the solution for HCP is not that demanding at the moment which gives us some air to do it in a later phase, e.g., after we handle the standalone clusters.
|
|
||
| where the value is [the image pull specification of an OCP release payload image](https://hypershift-docs.netlify.app/reference/api/#hypershift.openshift.io/v1beta1.Release). | ||
|
|
||
| The MCO does not run on a hosted cluster and thus our proposal in this enhancement makes no improvement (or regression) for migration of a hosted cluster to multi-arch. Currently there is no way to discover if a hosted cluster is ready to serve a cross-arch node pool. The requests are mainly from the users of standalone clusters at the moment. When hosted cluster users desire the improvement, we can work with the HyperShift team for a solution. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Currently there is no way to discover if a hosted cluster is ready to serve a cross-arch node pool.
This is not true. There is a status condition on the HostedCluster that signals if the HostedCluster can support NodePools of different CPU architectures. (note only one CPU architecture type per NodePool is allowed).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My understanding from this is that "payloadArch" could mean it is or will be ready soon (i.e., still under reconciliation) to serve a secondary arch node pool. And we want a condition that exclude "will be ready".
What did I miss there?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe the statement just needs clarified then. As it is currently stated, it seems like one could read "there is no way to tell if a HostedCluster can support NodePools of different CPU architectures" when there is currently a way - checking that status condition and verifying the HC upgrade to a multi-arch release image completed.
It's more that there is no way to determine if a hosted cluster is ready to serve NodePools of varying CPU architectures in the middle of the upgrade process, is that what is trying to be conveyed here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Updated. Let me if I made the correct clarification.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@bryan-cox how/when is this payloadArch populated? @hongkailiu when hypershift adds the image version in the status could we use this payloadArch field as a "it is ready" field all the time for the purposes of CVO?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The HyperShift Operator updates the field for the HostedCluster here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@hongkailiu when hypershift adds the image version in the status could we use this payloadArch field as a "it is ready" field all the time for the purposes of CVO?
Are you suggesting to use payloadArch=Multi to indicate the hosted cluster is ready for creating a cross arch node pool? We cannot because it could mean it-will-be-ready-soon, i.e., not ready yet. Adding status for HyperShift handcrafted COs is not relevant because we are looking for an equivalent signal as co/machine-config finished upgrade and it does not exist on hosted clusters.
|
/lgtm |
|
@hongkailiu: all tests passed! Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. 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. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: PratikMahajan 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 |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
approved
/cc @wking @petr-muller