[tripleo][ci] container pulls failing
Cédric Jeanneret
cjeanner at redhat.com
Wed Aug 19 13:40:08 UTC 2020
On 8/19/20 3:23 PM, Alex Schultz wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:15 AM Luke Short <ekultails at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hey folks,
>>
>> All of the latest patches to address this have been merged in but we are still seeing this error randomly in CI jobs that involve an Undercloud or Standalone node. As far as I can tell, the error is appearing less often than before but it is still present making merging new patches difficult. I would be happy to help work towards other possible solutions however I am unsure where to start from here. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
>>
>
> I'm looking at this today but from what I can tell the problem is
> likely caused by a reduced anonymous query quota from docker.io and
> our usage of the upstream mirrors. Because the mirrors essentially
> funnel all requests through a single IP we're hitting limits faster
> than if we didn't use the mirrors. Due to the nature of the requests,
> the metadata queries don't get cached due to the authorization header
> but are subject to the rate limiting. Additionally we're querying the
> registry to determine which containers we need to update in CI because
> we limit our updates to a certain set of containers as part of the CI
> jobs.
>
> So there are likely a few different steps forward on this and we can
> do a few of these together.
>
> 1) stop using mirrors (not ideal but likely makes this go away).
> Alternatively switch stable branches off the mirrors due to a reduced
> number of executions and leave mirrors configured on master only (or
> vice versa).
might be good, but it might lead to some other issues - docker might
want to rate-limit on container owner. I wouldn't be surprised if they
go that way in the future. Could be OK as a first "unlocking step". But
we should consider 2) and 3).
> 2) reduce the number of jobs
always a good thing to do, +1
> 3) stop querying the registry for the update filters (i'm looking into
> this today) and use the information in tripleo-common first.
+1 - thanks for looking into it!
> 4) build containers always instead of fetching from docker.io
meh... last resort, if really nothing else works... It's time consuming
and will lead to other issues within the CI (job timeout and the like),
wouldn't it?
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
>
>
>> Sincerely,
>> Luke Short
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 12:26 PM Wesley Hayutin <whayutin at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 4:48 PM Wesley Hayutin <whayutin at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 4:33 PM Alex Schultz <aschultz at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 7:13 AM Wesley Hayutin <whayutin at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 2:25 AM Bogdan Dobrelya <bdobreli at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 7/28/20 6:09 PM, Wesley Hayutin wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 7:24 AM Emilien Macchi <emilien at redhat.com
>>>>>>>> <mailto:emilien at redhat.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 9:20 AM Alex Schultz <aschultz at redhat.com
>>>>>>>> <mailto:aschultz at redhat.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 7:13 AM Emilien Macchi
>>>>>>>> <emilien at redhat.com <mailto:emilien at redhat.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 5:27 PM Wesley Hayutin
>>>>>>>> <whayutin at redhat.com <mailto:whayutin at redhat.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> FYI...
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> If you find your jobs are failing with an error similar to
>>>>>>>> [1], you have been rate limited by docker.io <http://docker.io>
>>>>>>>> via the upstream mirror system and have hit [2]. I've been
>>>>>>>> discussing the issue w/ upstream infra, rdo-infra and a few CI
>>>>>>>> engineers.
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> There are a few ways to mitigate the issue however I don't
>>>>>>>> see any of the options being completed very quickly so I'm
>>>>>>>> asking for your patience while this issue is socialized and
>>>>>>>> resolved.
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> For full transparency we're considering the following options.
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> 1. move off of docker.io <http://docker.io> to quay.io
>>>>>>>> <http://quay.io>
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > quay.io <http://quay.io> also has API rate limit:
>>>>>>>> > https://docs.quay.io/issues/429.html
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > Now I'm not sure about how many requests per seconds one can
>>>>>>>> do vs the other but this would need to be checked with the quay
>>>>>>>> team before changing anything.
>>>>>>>> > Also quay.io <http://quay.io> had its big downtimes as well,
>>>>>>>> SLA needs to be considered.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >> 2. local container builds for each job in master, possibly
>>>>>>>> ussuri
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > Not convinced.
>>>>>>>> > You can look at CI logs:
>>>>>>>> > - pulling / updating / pushing container images from
>>>>>>>> docker.io <http://docker.io> to local registry takes ~10 min on
>>>>>>>> standalone (OVH)
>>>>>>>> > - building containers from scratch with updated repos and
>>>>>>>> pushing them to local registry takes ~29 min on standalone (OVH).
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> 3. parent child jobs upstream where rpms and containers will
>>>>>>>> be build and host artifacts for the child jobs
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > Yes, we need to investigate that.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> 4. remove some portion of the upstream jobs to lower the
>>>>>>>> impact we have on 3rd party infrastructure.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > I'm not sure I understand this one, maybe you can give an
>>>>>>>> example of what could be removed?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We need to re-evaulate our use of scenarios (e.g. we have two
>>>>>>>> scenario010's both are non-voting). There's a reason we
>>>>>>>> historically
>>>>>>>> didn't want to add more jobs because of these types of resource
>>>>>>>> constraints. I think we've added new jobs recently and likely
>>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>>> reduce what we run. Additionally we might want to look into reducing
>>>>>>>> what we run on stable branches as well.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh... removing jobs (I thought we would remove some steps of the jobs).
>>>>>>>> Yes big +1, this should be a continuous goal when working on CI, and
>>>>>>>> always evaluating what we need vs what we run now.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We should look at:
>>>>>>>> 1) services deployed in scenarios that aren't worth testing (e.g.
>>>>>>>> deprecated or unused things) (and deprecate the unused things)
>>>>>>>> 2) jobs themselves (I don't have any example beside scenario010 but
>>>>>>>> I'm sure there are more).
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Emilien Macchi
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks Alex, Emilien
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +1 to reviewing the catalog and adjusting things on an ongoing basis.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All.. it looks like the issues with docker.io <http://docker.io> were
>>>>>>>> more of a flare up than a change in docker.io <http://docker.io> policy
>>>>>>>> or infrastructure [2]. The flare up started on July 27 8am utc and
>>>>>>>> ended on July 27 17:00 utc, see screenshots.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The numbers of image prepare workers and its exponential fallback
>>>>>>> intervals should be also adjusted. I've analysed the log snippet [0] for
>>>>>>> the connection reset counts by workers versus the times the rate
>>>>>>> limiting was triggered. See the details in the reported bug [1].
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> tl;dr -- for an example 5 sec interval 03:55:31,379 - 03:55:36,110:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Conn Reset Counts by a Worker PID:
>>>>>>> 3 58412
>>>>>>> 2 58413
>>>>>>> 3 58415
>>>>>>> 3 58417
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> which seems too much of (workers*reconnects) and triggers rate limiting
>>>>>>> immediately.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [0]
>>>>>>> https://13b475d7469ed7126ee9-28d4ad440f46f2186fe3f98464e57890.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/741228/6/check/tripleo-ci-centos-8-undercloud-containers/8e47836/logs/undercloud/var/log/tripleo-container-image-prepare.log
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/tripleo/+bug/1889372
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>> Bogdan Dobrelya,
>>>>>>> Irc #bogdando
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FYI..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The issue w/ "too many requests" is back. Expect delays and failures in attempting to merge your patches upstream across all branches. The issue is being tracked as a critical issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> Working with the infra folks and we have identified the authorization
>>>>> header as causing issues when we're rediected from docker.io to
>>>>> cloudflare. I'll throw up a patch tomorrow to handle this case which
>>>>> should improve our usage of the cache. It needs some testing against
>>>>> other registries to ensure that we don't break authenticated fetching
>>>>> of resources.
>>>>>
>>>> Thanks Alex!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> FYI.. we have been revisited by the container pull issue, "too many requests".
>>> Alex has some fresh patches on it: https://review.opendev.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/tripleo-common+topic:bug/1889122
>>>
>>> expect trouble in check and gate:
>>> http://logstash.openstack.org/#dashboard/file/logstash.json?query=message%3A%5C%22429%20Client%20Error%3A%20Too%20Many%20Requests%20for%20url%3A%5C%22%20AND%20voting%3A1
>>>
>
>
--
Cédric Jeanneret (He/Him/His)
Sr. Software Engineer - OpenStack Platform
Deployment Framework TC
Red Hat EMEA
https://www.redhat.com/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20200819/6a4c8e57/attachment-0001.sig>
More information about the openstack-discuss
mailing list