Bugzilla will be upgraded to version 5.0 on a still to be determined date in the near future. The original upgrade date has been delayed.
Bug 1353744 - Router slow in loading routes to haproxy config
Router slow in loading routes to haproxy config
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE
Product: OpenShift Container Platform
Classification: Red Hat
Component: Routing (Show other bugs)
3.1.0
Unspecified Unspecified
unspecified Severity high
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Ram Ranganathan
zhaozhanqi
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2016-07-07 17:51 EDT by Ryan Howe
Modified: 2017-10-04 05:37 EDT (History)
10 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-07-27 15:36:58 EDT
Type: Bug
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)


External Trackers
Tracker ID Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Knowledge Base (Solution) 2472301 None None None 2017-07-24 23:18 EDT

  None (edit)
Description Ryan Howe 2016-07-07 17:51:30 EDT
Description of problem:

Router stops pulling config, takes 10+ minutes to propagate on fresh deploy. 


Looking for PR that fixes issue to brought to 3.1.1.6 router
https://github.com/openshift/origin/pull/7805
https://github.com/openshift/origin/issues/7657


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
3.1.1.6

Additional info:

+ config_file=/var/lib/haproxy/conf/haproxy.config
+ pid_file=/var/lib/haproxy/run/haproxy.pid
+ old_pid=
+ haproxy_conf_dir=/var/lib/haproxy/conf
+ for mapfile in '"$haproxy_conf_dir"/*.map'
+ sort -r /var/lib/haproxy/conf/os_edge_http_be.map -o /var/lib/haproxy/conf/os_edge_http_be.map
+ for mapfile in '"$haproxy_conf_dir"/*.map'
+ sort -r /var/lib/haproxy/conf/os_edge_http_expose.map -o /var/lib/haproxy/conf/os_edge_http_expose.map
+ for mapfile in '"$haproxy_conf_dir"/*.map'
+ sort -r /var/lib/haproxy/conf/os_edge_http_redirect.map -o /var/lib/haproxy/conf/os_edge_http_redirect.map
+ for mapfile in '"$haproxy_conf_dir"/*.map'
+ sort -r /var/lib/haproxy/conf/os_http_be.map -o /var/lib/haproxy/conf/os_http_be.map
+ for mapfile in '"$haproxy_conf_dir"/*.map'
+ sort -r /var/lib/haproxy/conf/os_reencrypt.map -o /var/lib/haproxy/conf/os_reencrypt.map
+ for mapfile in '"$haproxy_conf_dir"/*.map'
+ sort -r /var/lib/haproxy/conf/os_sni_passthrough.map -o /var/lib/haproxy/conf/os_sni_passthrough.map
+ for mapfile in '"$haproxy_conf_dir"/*.map'
+ sort -r /var/lib/haproxy/conf/os_tcp_be.map -o /var/lib/haproxy/conf/os_tcp_be.map
+ '[' -f /var/lib/haproxy/run/haproxy.pid ']'
+ old_pid=794
+ '[' -n 794 ']'
+ /usr/sbin/haproxy -f /var/lib/haproxy/conf/haproxy.config -p /var/lib/haproxy/run/haproxy.pid -sf 794
E0705 18:46:51.318113       1 controller.go:84] route support/default-nodejs-route holds as.intra1.test.epaas.ose.com and is older than ecpsupport/default-svc
E0705 18:46:56.323659       1 controller.go:100] error reloading router: wait: no child processes
Comment 1 Ram Ranganathan 2016-07-11 22:23:58 EDT
@rhowe this was fixed in 3.2 and there's other changes to not do multiple reloads on startup (as routes are still being processed - though that would be post 3.2). 
Can the customer upgrade to 3.2?  Or was this just a tracking bug?  Thanks.
Comment 2 Bryan Yount 2016-07-20 20:59:03 EDT
(In reply to Ram Ranganathan from comment #1)
> @rhowe this was fixed in 3.2 and there's other changes to not do multiple
> reloads on startup (as routes are still being processed - though that would
> be post 3.2). 
> Can the customer upgrade to 3.2?  Or was this just a tracking bug?  Thanks.

The customer is unable to upgrade to OpenShift 3.2 in production at this time. They are working to stand up a separate cloud that will contain OpenShift 3.3 but that won't be until later this year. In the meantime, they need a backport to 3.1.
Comment 4 Ben Bennett 2016-07-21 11:56:55 EDT
The 3.2 router is backwards compatible with 3.1... so the recommendation on a similar bug was to run the latest 3.2 image in the 3.1 system.
Comment 5 Ben Bennett 2016-07-21 12:00:05 EDT
Here's the other bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1320233
Comment 7 Ram Ranganathan 2016-07-27 15:36:58 EDT
As this is no longer needed - closing this out as the fixes are in 3.2 and the issue was fixed as part of changes in PR:  https://github.com/openshift/origin/pull/7805

FY, associated github issue: https://github.com/openshift/origin/issues/7657

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.