Did you find any solution for this?
On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 at 01:34 Mateus Caruccio
wrote:
> Yep, there it is:
>
> [OSEv3:children]
> masters
> etcd
> nodes
>
> [OSEv3:vars]
> deployment_type=origin
> openshift_release=v3.6
> debug_level=1
> openshift_debug_level=1
> openshift_node_debug_level=1
>
The ssl cert on docs.openshift.com seems to have expired.
___
dev mailing list
dev@lists.openshift.redhat.com
http://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshiftmm/listinfo/dev
gt; On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 11:02 PM, Andrew Lau
> wrote:
>
>> I think the node images are still missing the sdn-ovs package.
>>
>> On Tue, 1 Aug 2017 at 07:45 Clayton Coleman wrote:
>>
>>> This has been fixed and images were repushed.
>>>
>>&g
gt; On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Andrew Lau
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The images still seem to be using rc0 packages.
>>>
>>> rpm -qa | grep origin
>>> origin-clients-3.6.0-0.rc.0.359.de23676.x86_64
>>> origin-3.6.0-0.rc.0.359.de23676.x86_64
>&
The images still seem to be using rc0 packages.
rpm -qa | grep origin
origin-clients-3.6.0-0.rc.0.359.de23676.x86_64
origin-3.6.0-0.rc.0.359.de23676.x86_64
I also had a PR which just got merged for a missing package in the node
image https://github.com/openshift/origin/pull/15542
On Tue, 1 Aug 2
Cheers
On Thu, 18 May 2017 at 15:00 Clayton Coleman wrote:
> Check now
>
> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:10 AM, Andrew Lau
> wrote:
>
>> Will metrics get their tags bumped to v1.5.1?
>>
>> On Wed, 17 May 2017 at 07:48 Clayton Coleman wrote:
>>
>>>
Will metrics get their tags bumped to v1.5.1?
On Wed, 17 May 2017 at 07:48 Clayton Coleman wrote:
> Two bugs were addressed in this release, please see the GitHub release
> page for more info:
>
> https://github.com/openshift/origin/releases/tag/v1.5.1
> _
I have an issue open here https://github.com/openshift/origin/issues/14092
about pods sometimes getting deployed without internal network connectivity
(using multinenant plugin). They still seem to have outbound network
connectivity.
I believe these may be the relevant logs, I was wondering if any
I believe this is a significant bug that needs attention
https://github.com/openshift/origin/issues/13862
___
dev mailing list
dev@lists.openshift.redhat.com
http://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshiftmm/listinfo/dev
Thanks! Hopefully we don't hit this too much until 1.5.0 is released
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 at 01:26 Patrick Tescher
wrote:
> We upgraded to 1.5.0 and that error went away.
>
> --
> Patrick Tescher
>
> On Apr 19, 2017, at 10:59 PM, Andrew Lau wrote:
>
> thin_ls has
thin_ls has been happening for quite some time
https://github.com/openshift/origin/issues/10940
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 at 15:55 Tero Ahonen wrote:
> It seems that error is related to docker storage on that vm
>
> .t
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 20 Apr 2017, at 8.
iner?
>
> .t
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On 20 Apr 2017, at 8.18, Andrew Lau wrote:
> >
> > I'm trying to debug a weird scenario where a node has had every pod
> crash with the error:
> > "rpc error: code = 2 desc = shim error: context deadline
I'm trying to debug a weird scenario where a node has had every pod crash
with the error:
"rpc error: code = 2 desc = shim error: context deadline exceeded"
The pods stayed in the state Ready 0/1
The docker daemon was responding and the kublet and all it's services were
running. The node was repor
AWS patches.
>
> -bc
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Clayton Coleman
> wrote:
>
>> I am surprised that hasn't already been backported. Copying some folks
>> who may know.
>>
>> On Apr 13, 2017, at 9:48 PM, Andrew Lau wrote:
&
Hi,
What are the chances for having something like this backported to 1.5?
https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/commit/9992bd23c2aa12db432696fd324e900770251dc0
I've been seeing this happen every few weeks where one EBS volume gets
stuck forever in a pending state. Usually after a node has bee
Had a similar thing happen an EBS volume last year. Haven't been able to
replicate it since.
Happened when a node was overloaded and couldn't report back it's status,
my best guess was it tried to mount onto another node and some sort of race
condition wiped the contents.
On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 at 22:
/healthz/ready
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 at 09:40 Srinivas Naga Kotaru (skotaru) <
skot...@cisco.com> wrote:
> NO. I already checked. Version also throwing 403
>
>
>
> HTTP/1.1 403 Forbidden
>
> Cache-Control: no-store
>
> Content-Type: application/json
>
> Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2017 22:39:12 GMT
>
> Conte
Worth noting, the cluster policy for egressnetworkpolicy
became egressnetworkpolicies (had to update our policies)
On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 at 10:12 Jordan Liggitt wrote:
> Origin 1.4.1 is now available and fixes this issue.
>
> https://github.com/openshift/origin/releases/tag/v1.4.1
>
> On Mon, Jan
We use a tweaked version of the script that the guys over at Appuio
published. It's been working well in our prod environment
https://github.com/appuio/letsencrypt
On Fri, 25 Nov 2016 at 00:36 Tomas Nozicka wrote:
I've been thinking for a long time about some kind of support for Let's
Encrypt [1
Exciting!
Are there any recommended upgrade paths between these alpha/beta versions?
I have a test install running alpha.2
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 at 08:59 Clayton Coleman wrote:
> We intend to cut a new tag for 1.3.0 once the Kube 1.3 pod startup issue
> is fixed (pods in the same namespace are se
Ah cheers.
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 at 14:56 Clayton Coleman wrote:
> There is a PR open to backport it to 1.9
> https://github.com/projectatomic/docker/pull/168
>
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 12:32 AM, Andrew Lau wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Has anyone hit this issue where a
Hi,
Has anyone hit this issue where a pod is not able to start after it's been
successfully built:
Starting container fails with "System error: read parent: connection reset
by peer"
This issue (https://github.com/docker/docker/issues/14203) seems to say
it's fixed in docker 1.10 but atomic host
ithub.com/openshift/origin/pull/8938
> [2] https://github.com/docker/distribution/releases/tag/v2.4.0
>
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 4:58 AM, Andrew Lau wrote:
>
>> Good point on encryption. Disabling encryption which I believe is done
>> outside of the registry (as an AWS KMS key
re's a lot of manual work you'd have to do. I'm sure someone in the
> ecosystem has written a tool, but it's probably not efficient.
>
> On Jun 3, 2016, at 8:21 PM, Andrew Lau wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Does anyone have any comparisons of s3 registry performance? W
Hi,
Does anyone have any comparisons of s3 registry performance? We've found it
to be quite slow, at least 2-3 times longer then using something like an
EBS volume. Here's the config being used:
encrypt: true
secure: true
v4auth: true
chunksize: 26214400
I stumbled across
Hi,
Is there a way to have the old pod moved into the terminating scope? Or is
there an alternative solution for the following use case:
User has the following quota:
1 pod in terminating scope
1 pod in non-terminating scope
For new builds, the build will complete in the terminating scope but th
Not sure how I missed that, thanks!
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 at 11:37 Clayton Coleman wrote:
> The docs here:
> https://docs.openshift.org/latest/admin_guide/managing_projects.html#limit-projects-per-user
>
> Cover that.
>
> > On Apr 13, 2016, at 7:17 PM, Andrew Lau wrote:
>
Hi,
There seems to be documentation on project quotas and disabling self
provisioning, however is there a facility that lets us set a limit for the
the number of projects a user can have?
Thanks.
___
dev mailing list
dev@lists.openshift.redhat.com
http:
Hi,
When creating a PVC via console or template/quickstart, the volume isn't
dynamically created in AWS and the PVC is stuck in an infinite pending
state until the following annotation is added to the claim:
annotations:
volume.alpha.kubernetes.io/storage-class: foo
Is there anyway that th
On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 at 07:49 Jason DeTiberus wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 4:47 PM, Andrew Lau wrote:
>
>> The repos there are for just for the standard CentOS rpm installs? I was
>> hoping to update my centos atomic hosts
>>
>
> The docker images are
re slowly but surely migrating the builds to the Cent OS PaaS
> SIG repositories.
>
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Andrew Lau
> wrote:
>
>> Is there any timeline on when the centos atomic packages will be updated
>> to meet the new kubernetes+docker version requirements
Is there any timeline on when the centos atomic packages will be updated to
meet the new kubernetes+docker version requirements?
On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 at 08:12 Clayton Coleman wrote:
> Release notes are here
> https://github.com/openshift/origin/releases/tag/v1.1.5
>
> Note that v1.1.5 resolves an
32 matches
Mail list logo
