-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 187
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
Backend manager re-design #342
Backend manager re-design #342
Conversation
- by this avoid the concurrnet use of the same backend connection
- by this avoid the concurrent use of the same backend connection for real (backend is guarded by mutex)
- add identifier only if it is supported by the backend manager
revert destHost logic change for now
Hi @mihivagyok. 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 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. |
/assign @andrewsykim @cheftako |
/ok-to-test |
- receiver name should be consistent
/retest |
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs. This bot triages issues and 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 issues and PRs. This bot triages issues and PRs according to the following rules:
You can:
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community. /lifecycle rotten |
@mihivagyok: 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/test-infra repository. |
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough active contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs. This bot triages issues and 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/test-infra repository. |
/remove-lifecycle stale |
/reopen |
@mihivagyok: Reopened 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/test-infra repository. |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: mihivagyok 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 |
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/test-infra repository. |
/reopen |
@cheftako: Reopened 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/test-infra repository. |
@mihivagyok: The following tests failed, say
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. |
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs. This bot triages issues and 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 issues and PRs. This bot triages issues and 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/test-infra repository. |
e.g.
addBackend->Addbackend->newBackend
functions were called with the very same agent backend connectionAs the current code creates multiple backends with the same connection, this is ineffective
that's why let's change the backendManager logic
Why do we need this? This solves many issues based on our testing like
konnectivity fails on kubectl cp #261 - I think if there are multiple strategies and multiple client calls to the server, it could happen that the server call the
send()
on a connection which is already in the 'sending' state. After that the backend just hangs in the server - other backends with the same connection could still work. That's why there is also memory leak probably in the server side (Konnectivity server leaks memory and free sockets #255)fixes this as now the addBackend always return one backend (Server running with --proxy-strategies=destHost panics even if agent has correct --agent-identifiers #316) - although I don't understand what panics mean in the issue
I have tested my scenarios and it works quite okay, so I really think this change is needed and crucial for konnectivity stability
I have only reworked the AddBackend function, the RemoveBackend function is the same - but that does not matter.
I have also created unit tests for proxy strategy testing