Bug 1870665
| Summary: | OpenShift 4.4.5: workload scheduled on master nodes | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | OpenShift Container Platform | Reporter: | Mike Dame <mdame> |
| Component: | Machine Config Operator | Assignee: | Mike Dame <mdame> |
| Status: | CLOSED DUPLICATE | QA Contact: | Lubov <lshilin> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | 4.4 | CC: | aos-bugs, augol, bhershbe, jteagno+bugzilla, kgarriso, lshilin, markmc, mdame, mfojtik, miabbott, mkrejci, rgudimet, sreichar |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | 4.5.z | ||
| Hardware: | x86_64 | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | 1851226 | Environment: | |
| Last Closed: | 2020-10-28 18:33:05 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | 1851226 | ||
| Bug Blocks: | |||
|
Comment 1
Lubov
2020-08-23 09:25:17 UTC
@Lubov, that bug and this bug's parent look very similar. However I think what they addressed in that is the root cause of why/how the cluster ended up in this state. However, I don't see anything in that bug that addressed the case where setting `mastersSchedulable: false` does not update the nodes (the fix in this bug). Due to that, I think this bug and its PR should remain open until we can merge/verify that setting mastersSchedulable takes effect. I'm adding UpcomingSprint, because there is still ongoing discussion about whether the specific fix proposed here is actually necessary (see linked PR) (In reply to Mike Dame from comment #3) > I'm adding UpcomingSprint, because there is still ongoing discussion about > whether the specific fix proposed here is actually necessary (see linked PR) To be clear - are we proposing marking this as a duplicate of bug #1846503 ? (In reply to Mark McLoughlin from comment #4) > (In reply to Mike Dame from comment #3) > > I'm adding UpcomingSprint, because there is still ongoing discussion about > > whether the specific fix proposed here is actually necessary (see linked PR) > > To be clear - are we proposing marking this as a duplicate of bug #1846503 ? Correct, we need to decide if the root cause identified in that bug makes my edge case reconciliation unnecessary. I don't know enough about that bug and its solution to decide that myself, so if anyone does have insight that would help our decision. Otherwise, I will close this bug in the next couple days as a duplicate. I'm closing this BZ and the related PR due to lack of evidence that the proposed fix was actually necessary. I believe at this point the root cause of this bug has been addressed by other fixes. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1846503 *** |