Bug 2016955: Set AWS Bootstrap Type == Master#5334
Bug 2016955: Set AWS Bootstrap Type == Master#5334openshift-merge-robot merged 1 commit intoopenshift:masterfrom
Conversation
This commit sets the boostrap node to use the same instance type as the control-plane nodes in order to avoid failures that we have seen when the hard-coded instance type of m5 is unavailable in the zone.
|
@patrickdillon: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 2016955, which is invalid:
Comment DetailsIn 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. |
|
/bugzilla refresh |
|
@patrickdillon: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 2016955, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state. The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker. 3 validation(s) were run on this bug
No GitHub users were found matching the public email listed for the QA contact in Bugzilla (gpei@redhat.com), skipping review request. DetailsIn 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. |
| return nil, errors.New("EBS IOPS must be configured for the io1 root volume") | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| instanceClass := defaults.InstanceClass(masterConfig.Placement.Region, sources.Architecture) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we don't need the InstanceClass function any more. But we can take care of that in a separate PR that doesn't need to be backported.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok. Wasn't sure if we wanted to keep it or not. Done in #5335
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: staebler The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
|
/cherry-pick release-4.9 |
|
@patrickdillon: once the present PR merges, I will cherry-pick it on top of release-4.9 in a new PR and assign it to you. DetailsIn 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. |
|
/cherry-pick cancel Manually picked #5337 |
|
@patrickdillon: once the present PR merges, I will cherry-pick it on top of cancel in a new PR and assign it to you. DetailsIn 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. |
Oh, good. Thank you. |
|
/retest-required Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
8 similar comments
|
/retest-required Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest-required Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest-required Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest-required Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest-required Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest-required Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest-required Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest-required Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
@patrickdillon: The following tests failed, say
Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. DetailsInstructions 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. |
|
/retest-required Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
4 similar comments
|
/retest-required Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest-required Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest-required Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest-required Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
@patrickdillon: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged: Bugzilla bug 2016955 has been moved to the MODIFIED state. DetailsIn 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. |
|
@patrickdillon: new pull request created: #5339 DetailsIn 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. |
|
@patrickdillon: cannot checkout DetailsIn 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. |
This commit sets the boostrap node to use the same instance type as the control-plane nodes
in order to avoid failures that we have seen when the hard-coded instance type of m5 is unavailable in the zone.
Setting the bootstrap instance type equal to the control-plane instance type is the approach we already take on GCP & Azure.