chore: adjust manifest limits

[thisthat]

This PR

- Removes kube-rbac-proxy since it goes against our Observability first approach (see their docs)

• adjust limits based on monitoring while running the performance tests
  
  

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #891 (2822553) into main (7d2621b) will decrease coverage by 0.03%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

❗ Current head 2822553 differs from pull request most recent head 894270d. Consider uploading reports for the commit 894270d to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #891      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   58.55%   58.52%   -0.03%     
==========================================
  Files          97       97              
  Lines        7552     7552              
==========================================
- Hits         4422     4420       -2     
- Misses       2938     2939       +1     
- Partials      192      193       +1     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...ptnworkloadinstance/reconcile_prepostevaluation.go	81.81% <0.00%> (-9.10%)	⬇️
...lers/lifecycle/keptnworkloadinstance/controller.go	81.61% <0.00%> (+0.44%)	⬆️

Flag	Coverage Δ
component-tests	41.65% <ø> (+0.04%)	⬆️
keptn-lifecycle-operator	54.67% <ø> (ø)
klt-cert-manager	67.50% <ø> (ø)
scheduler	21.17% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

[mowies]

@thisthat can you tell me more about the failing probes? I'd rather leave them in and fix them or change them than completely remove them

[thisthat]

Hey @mowies, probes to kube-rbac-proxy print the following log: 2023/02/22 07:19:43 http: TLS handshake error from 10.128.16.85:38312: EOF. This is printed with an error level and could cause alerts on your observability platform.
On the K8s side, everything works fine since K8s skips cert checks, but the proxy prints this error log nevertheless.
I briefly looked into the code of the proxy and it looks like there is no health/ready probe endpoint for that container.

[mowies]

Then we could still use more low level probes that don't rely on certificates instead of removing them altogether.

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for keptn-lifecyle-testing ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	2822553
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/keptn-lifecyle-testing/deploys/63f71db886fcfd000825eee4
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-891--keptn-lifecyle-testing.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site settings.

[thisthat]

@mowies @RealAnna and I discussed this topic and the benefits of kube-rbac-proxy to our project.
Given our Observability first approach, this container goes against our principle, making it harder to scrape the container metrics. So, I would like to remove it.

[mowies]

@thisthat let's create a separate issue for the removal :)

[thisthat]

You're right @mowies , I've created #901

[sonarqubecloud]

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!   

0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
0 Security Hotspots
0 Code Smells

No Coverage information
0.0% Duplication

[thschue]

lgtm