+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #1896321 +++ Description of problem: MachineSet uses a set of annotations to provide source of truth for autoscaling from 0. https://github.com/openshift/cluster-api-provider-azure/blob/master/pkg/cloud/azure/actuators/machineset/controller.go#L39-L41 The data for the annotations is gathered from a static list, which becomes outdated over time, providing incorrect estimation of the values or returing nothing for non-listed instance types. Referenced PR is regenerating these lists, taking the code from upstream autoscaler, and shows the differences in the updated "pkg/actuators/machineset/ec2_instance_types.go" file - https://github.com/openshift/cluster-api-provider-aws/pull/367/files Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 4.7 How reproducible: Sometimes Steps to Reproduce: 1. Create a MachineSet for AWS using p4d.24xlarge instance type 2. Check the annotations on the resource 3. See none and error messages in logs Actual results: Scaling from 0 is not available for new instance type, like p4d.24xlarge (AWS) Expected results: MachineSet annotation logic should return correct values for any available instance. Additional info: --- Additional comment from jspeed on 2020-11-13 12:05:00 UTC --- This is low priority right now as it works for most instance types. We may be able to add a quick fix (including the new types) during the next sprint and look into a proper long term fix at a later date --- Additional comment from mimccune on 2020-12-04 18:53:02 UTC --- adding UpcomingSprint tag, the team should have good bandwidth to address this after feature freeze. --- Additional comment from jspeed on 2021-01-05 17:21:31 UTC --- We haven't worked out whether we are going to quick fix this or be able to implement a permanent solution (this will depend on if there is an api for instance types), setting this to target --- so that we triage for future releases --- Additional comment from jspeed on 2021-02-08 09:51:55 UTC --- Since we need to implement a permanent solution to this for all providers, I will convert this work to a Jira card and ensure we create a quick fix in the mean time to update the list of instances --- Additional comment from jspeed on 2021-03-25 12:01:10 UTC --- Ive created a JIRA card for tracking the dynamic fetching idea longer term, going to use this BZ for the temporary AWS list update for now If you want to know the progress of a permanent solution, please see https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPCLOUD-1131
verified after testing on a cluster launched with cluster-bot clusterversion: 4.7.0-0.ci.test-2021-04-08-004722-ci-ln-xzssv92 add workload, machineset could scale up from 0 with instanceType: p4d.24xlarge $ oc get clusterversion NAME VERSION AVAILABLE PROGRESSING SINCE STATUS version 4.7.0-0.ci.test-2021-04-08-004722-ci-ln-xzssv92 True False 18m Cluster version is 4.7.0-0.ci.test-2021-04-08-004722-ci-ln-xzssv92 $ oc get machineautoscaler NAME REF KIND REF NAME MIN MAX AGE machineautoscaler-b MachineSet ci-ln-xzssv92-d5d6b-j75m8-worker-us-east-2b 0 2 2m38s $ oc get machine NAME PHASE TYPE REGION ZONE AGE ci-ln-xzssv92-d5d6b-j75m8-master-0 Running m5.xlarge us-east-2 us-east-2a 54m ci-ln-xzssv92-d5d6b-j75m8-master-1 Running m5.xlarge us-east-2 us-east-2b 54m ci-ln-xzssv92-d5d6b-j75m8-master-2 Running m5.xlarge us-east-2 us-east-2a 54m ci-ln-xzssv92-d5d6b-j75m8-worker-us-east-2a-v478m Running m4.xlarge us-east-2 us-east-2a 48m ci-ln-xzssv92-d5d6b-j75m8-worker-us-east-2a-wn82p Running m4.xlarge us-east-2 us-east-2a 48m ci-ln-xzssv92-d5d6b-j75m8-worker-us-east-2b-t5rwn Running p4d.24xlarge us-east-2 us-east-2b 4m24s
Pre-merged verified by @Zhsun .. hence moved to VERIFIED.
Since the problem described in this bug report should be resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For information on the advisory (OpenShift Container Platform 4.7.18 bug fix update), and where to find the updated files, follow the link below. If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report. https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2021:2502