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.

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

📖 Add control plane machine count 1 warning #7707

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

dtzar
Copy link
Contributor

@dtzar dtzar commented Dec 8, 2022

Signed-off-by: David Tesar [email protected]

What this PR does / why we need it:
Fixes #3425

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. labels Dec 8, 2022
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Welcome @dtzar!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Dec 8, 2022
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @dtzar. 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/test-infra repository.

@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 cecilerobertmichon for approval by writing /assign @cecilerobertmichon in a comment. 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

@dtzar dtzar changed the title Add control plane machine count 1 warning 📖 Add control plane machine count 1 warning Dec 8, 2022
@dtzar dtzar marked this pull request as ready for review December 8, 2022 01:55
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Dec 8, 2022
@oscr
Copy link
Contributor

oscr commented Dec 8, 2022

/ok-to-test

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. and removed needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. labels Dec 8, 2022

<h1> Warning! </h1>

** `--controlplane-machine-count` today allows a value of 1 which is [not recommended for production](https://kubernetes.io/docs/tasks/administer-cluster/configure-upgrade-etcd/#single-node-etcd-cluster) and in the future [being considered to not be supported with clusterctl code](https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api/issues/3425). Instead it is recommended to [specify a value of 5](https://kubernetes.io/docs/tasks/administer-cluster/configure-upgrade-etcd/#multi-node-etcd-cluster) or only utilize a control plane from a provider.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for taking an interest in this @dtzar! However, having a controlplane-machine-count of 1 isn't the same as what's outlined in #3425 - that's about dropping support for standalone control-plane machines i.e. those not managed by a control plane provider.

There's an ongoing conversation about dropping support for this in 1.4 though. @dtzar it would be great help if you could find where in the book we might be pointing toward that use case and remove those instances to help drive that work forward.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for the feedback. So you're saying dropping support for deploying any number of control plane machines which are not managed by a provider? Perhaps you could link to one or more places in documentation where this is referenced?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

So you're saying dropping support for deploying any number of control plane machines which are not managed by a provider

Exactly - I don't think CAPI should enforce specific deployment scenarios like e.g. number of CP nodes in a cluster, but currently support is built-in for 'standalone' control planes which, in general, pre-existed the Control Plane providers.

I'm not sure how many places in the documentation explicitly supports the use case but there is this in staging-use-cases.md:

  • As an operator, given that I have a management cluster and a pre-existing control plane, I would like to manage the lifecycle of a group of worker nodes without managing the control plane those nodes join.

I think we need the community discussion on deprecating this case to move forward before actually making any changes.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ok, I provided my feedback on migrating the staging-use-cases document all together on your issue.

@dtzar dtzar closed this Dec 14, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Consider deprecating control plane machines outside a control-plane provider
4 participants