OCPBUGS-66420: Revert "Default Enablement of Auto Sizing Reserved in OpenShift 4.21" #5489
Conversation
|
@neisw: This pull request references OCPNODE-3719 which is a valid jira issue. Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the story to target the "4.21.0" version, but no target version was set. 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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
openshift-ci-robot
added
the
jira/valid-reference
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
do-not-merge/work-in-progress
|
Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request. |
|
/payload-aggregate periodic-ci-openshift-release-master-nightly-4.21-e2e-aws-ovn-upgrade-fips 10 |
|
@neisw: trigger 1 job(s) for the /payload-(with-prs|job|aggregate|job-with-prs|aggregate-with-prs) command
See details on https://pr-payload-tests.ci.openshift.org/runs/ci/e2ef6e30-d6a7-11f0-86ba-8f6c48362a62-0 |
|
/payload-aggregate periodic-ci-openshift-release-master-nightly-4.21-e2e-aws-ovn-upgrade-fips 10 |
|
@neisw: trigger 1 job(s) for the /payload-(with-prs|job|aggregate|job-with-prs|aggregate-with-prs) command
See details on https://pr-payload-tests.ci.openshift.org/runs/ci/cab69080-d6cc-11f0-9919-32007c53b184-0 |
|
/payload-aggregate-with-prs periodic-ci-openshift-release-master-nightly-4.21-e2e-aws-ovn-upgrade-fips 10 openshift/cluster-api#254 |
|
@neisw: trigger 1 job(s) for the /payload-(with-prs|job|aggregate|job-with-prs|aggregate-with-prs) command
See details on https://pr-payload-tests.ci.openshift.org/runs/ci/03eb04e0-d6f9-11f0-8261-7255b3fcf62c-0 |
|
/payload-aggregate-with-prs periodic-ci-openshift-release-master-nightly-4.21-e2e-aws-ovn-upgrade-fips 10 openshift/cluster-api#254 |
|
@neisw: trigger 1 job(s) for the /payload-(with-prs|job|aggregate|job-with-prs|aggregate-with-prs) command
See details on https://pr-payload-tests.ci.openshift.org/runs/ci/b521a1b0-d749-11f0-9c6f-49bba9ef02f5-0 |
openshift-ci
bot
removed
the
do-not-merge/work-in-progress
|
/payload-aggregate-with-prs periodic-ci-openshift-release-master-nightly-4.21-e2e-aws-ovn-upgrade-fips 10 openshift/cluster-api#254 |
|
@neisw: trigger 1 job(s) for the /payload-(with-prs|job|aggregate|job-with-prs|aggregate-with-prs) command
See details on https://pr-payload-tests.ci.openshift.org/runs/ci/7c333c90-d755-11f0-917b-f286c81cb85b-0 |
|
/payload-aggregate-with-prs periodic-ci-openshift-release-master-nightly-4.22-e2e-aws-ovn-upgrade-fips 10 openshift/cluster-api#254 |
|
@neisw: trigger 1 job(s) for the /payload-(with-prs|job|aggregate|job-with-prs|aggregate-with-prs) command
See details on https://pr-payload-tests.ci.openshift.org/runs/ci/80db55f0-d757-11f0-9eab-e3cee46cb112-0 |
|
/retest-required |
neisw
changed the title
openshift-ci-robot
added
the
jira/invalid-bug
|
@neisw: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-66420, which is invalid:
Comment The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker. 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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
|
/lgtm We have evidence this has cut the occurrence of the problem dramatically, though we have found a couple hits that look similar amidst the 30 job runs that have been completed. Given the PR is logically consistent with what we've observed, in the payload the trouble started, and explains the micro vs minor upgrade differences we've seen, we're going to proceed with the revert. We believe these jobs were already banging up against max master CPU at this point in testing, the change in throttling memory or cpu pushed things over the edge into failure. Whether our test jobs should be hitting CPU so hard is another question and TRT/MPEX is working on ways to better schedule tests and the concurrency with which they run. Difficult problem to solve with the scope of what tests coming from all over could be attempting. It has to be said the case is not a slam dunk, why 2/30 runs still showed the problem, why we don't see it in fresh 4.21 installs that then run conformance (only micro upgrades on aws and gcp). If we're wrong and this does not stabilize CI, we will bring back in immediately with our sincerest apologies. |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: dgoodwin, neisw The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
|
/jira refresh |
openshift-ci-robot
added
jira/valid-bug
|
@dgoodwin: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-66420, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state. 3 validation(s) were run on this bug
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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
|
/label acknowledge-critical-fixes-only |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
acknowledge-critical-fixes-only
|
/label approved |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
approved
|
/verified by payload testing |
openshift-ci-robot
added
the
verified
|
/cherry-pick release-4.21 |
|
@dgoodwin: This PR has been marked as verified by 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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
|
@dgoodwin: once the present PR merges, I will cherry-pick it on top of 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-sigs/prow repository. |
|
@neisw: Jira Issue OCPBUGS-66420: Some pull requests linked via external trackers have merged: The following pull request, linked via external tracker, has not merged:
All associated pull requests must be merged or unlinked from the Jira bug in order for it to move to the next state. Once unlinked, request a bug refresh with Jira Issue OCPBUGS-66420 has not been moved to the MODIFIED state. This PR is marked as verified. If the remaining PRs listed above are marked as verified before merging, the issue will automatically be moved to VERIFIED after all of the changes from the PRs are available in an accepted nightly payload. 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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
|
@neisw: The following test 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-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
|
@dgoodwin: new pull request created: #5493 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-sigs/prow repository. |
|
/payload-aggregate periodic-ci-openshift-release-master-nightly-4.22-e2e-aws-ovn-upgrade-fips 10 |
|
@neisw: trigger 1 job(s) for the /payload-(with-prs|job|aggregate|job-with-prs|aggregate-with-prs) command
See details on https://pr-payload-tests.ci.openshift.org/runs/ci/ff55a130-d79b-11f0-9a25-9f734a58f934-0 |
|
Fix included in accepted release 4.22.0-0.nightly-2025-12-13-084344 |
5 participants
Reverts #5390
This is for testing only to get back to a state prior to 4.21.0-0.nightly-2025-11-27-173427 where we have picked up disruption noted in OCPBUGS-66420 most likely case is we rule out that any of these changes are in play here.