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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

✨ Support DockerCluster without load balancer #11413

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

✨ Support DockerCluster without load balancer #11413

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

phoban01
Copy link

@phoban01 phoban01 commented Nov 13, 2024 •
edited
Loading

What this PR does / why we need it:

In certain scenarios it may be desirable to deploy CAPD machines without a load-balancer.

For example, in the case of a hosted control plane such as a Kamaji the load-balancer will be fulfilled by the control plane provider (indirectly at least).

This change introduces a new field to the DockerCluster API that when true will skip the steps involved in creating and managing the load balancer container.

apiVersion: infrastructure.cluster.x-k8s.io/v1beta1
kind: DockerCluster
...
spec:
  loadBalancer:
    disable: true

This change is opt-in and has no impact otherwise.

/area provider/infrastructure-docker

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@phoban01: The label(s) area/area/provider/infrastructure-docker cannot be applied, because the repository doesn't have them.

In response to this:

What this PR does / why we need it:

In certain scenarios it may be desirable to deploy CAPD machines without a load-balancer.

For example, in the case of a hosted control plane such as a Kamaji the load-balancer will be fulfilled by the control plane provider (indirectly at least).

This change introduces a new field to the DockerCluster API that when true will skip the steps involved in creating and managing the load balancer container.

apiVersion: infrastructure.cluster.x-k8s.io/v1beta1
kind: DockerCluster
...
spec:
 loadBalancer:
   disable: true

This change is opt-in and has no impact otherwise.

/area area/provider/infrastructure-docker

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.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. label Nov 13, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign chrischdi for approval. For more information see the Kubernetes Code Review Process.

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

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/needs-area PR is missing an area label label Nov 13, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. label Nov 13, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @phoban01. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

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-sigs/prow repository.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. label Nov 13, 2024
@phoban01
Copy link
Author

/area provider/infrastructure-docker

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added area/provider/infrastructure-docker Issues or PRs related to the docker infrastructure provider and removed do-not-merge/needs-area PR is missing an area label labels Nov 13, 2024
@phoban01 phoban01 changed the title ✨ [capd] Support DockerCluster without load balancer ✨ Support DockerCluster without load balancer Nov 13, 2024
chrischdi
chrischdi reviewed Nov 21, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@chrischdi chrischdi left a comment •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm not sure if it is the best to add this to the docker provider without even having e2e coverage then to support this.

If we want to have this, I guess there will be no guarantees that other changes are breaking it again / only on a best effort base.

But I'd like to hear other maintainers too if we want to merge this.

CAPD is written for the purpose of having a reference implementation to test CAPI and this enlarges its scope to support other cases (guessing this is for testing kamaji at the end, which might be okay).

Please keep in mind that CAPD is only for testing.

test/infrastructure/docker/internal/controllers/dockercluster_controller.go
@@ -149,6 +152,13 @@ func patchDockerCluster(ctx context.Context, patchHelper *patch.Helper, dockerCl
}

func (r *DockerClusterReconciler) reconcileNormal(ctx context.Context, dockerCluster *infrav1.DockerCluster, externalLoadBalancer *docker.LoadBalancer) error {
if dockerCluster.Spec.LoadBalancer.Disable {
// Mark the dockerCluster ready
dockerCluster.Status.Ready = true
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

So not using a loadbalancer leads to never setting .status.ready to true?

That would break with the CAPI contract of infra clusters!

test/infrastructure/docker/api/v1beta1/dockercluster_types.go
Comment on lines +69 to +70
// Disable allows skipping the creation of the cluster load balancer.
Disable bool `json:"disable,omitempty"`
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Not completely happy with the wording ("disable"), should it be disabled? because it does not describe an action.

Also please use the godoc to document when this should get used and maybe also a disclamer similar to how we did for the CustomHAProxyConfigTemplateRef.

test/infrastructure/docker/internal/controllers/dockermachine_controller.go
}
if err := externalLoadBalancer.UpdateConfiguration(ctx, unsafeLoadBalancerConfigTemplate); err != nil {
return ctrl.Result{}, errors.Wrap(err, "failed to update DockerCluster.loadbalancer configuration")
if !dockerCluster.Spec.LoadBalancer.Disable {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should not be needed. control plane machines without the loadbalancer should not be supported IMHO.

test/infrastructure/docker/internal/controllers/dockermachine_controller.go
}
if err := externalLoadBalancer.UpdateConfiguration(ctx, unsafeLoadBalancerConfigTemplate); err != nil {
return errors.Wrap(err, "failed to update DockerCluster.loadbalancer configuration")
if !dockerCluster.Spec.LoadBalancer.Disable {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Same here, control plane machines with lb disabled should not be supported.

@fabriziopandini
Copy link
Member

FYI I'm thinking about refactoring CAPD such that it has the notion of backend, where a backend could be docker, the inmemory provider, eventually kubemark (at this moment I have chatted about this idea with few contributors, but I did but I did not had time to focus on it/bring it up in the community meeting yet 😅 ).

Given that this PR and the idea above are going to touch the same part of the code base, if you are willing to collaborate on this I would prefer to extend the idea above by allowing "no backend" for the DockerCluster vs introducing ad hoc flags.

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

PR needs rebase.

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.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Nov 22, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@chrischdi chrischdi chrischdi left review comments

@elmiko elmiko Awaiting requested review from elmiko

@jackfrancis jackfrancis Awaiting requested review from jackfrancis

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
area/provider/infrastructure-docker Issues or PRs related to the docker infrastructure provider cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
4 participants
@phoban01 @k8s-ci-robot @fabriziopandini @chrischdi