|
| 1 | +--- |
| 2 | +title: do-not-block-on-degraded-true-clusteroperators |
| 3 | +authors: |
| 4 | + - "@wking" |
| 5 | +reviewers: |
| 6 | + - "@PratikMahajan, update team lead" |
| 7 | + - "@sdodson, update staff engineer" |
| 8 | +approvers: |
| 9 | + - "@PratikMahajan, update team lead" |
| 10 | +api-approvers: |
| 11 | + - None |
| 12 | +creation-date: 2024-11-25 |
| 13 | +last-updated: 2024-11-25 |
| 14 | +tracking-link: |
| 15 | + - https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OTA-540 |
| 16 | +--- |
| 17 | + |
| 18 | +# Do not block on Degraded=True ClusterOperators |
| 19 | + |
| 20 | +## Summary |
| 21 | + |
| 22 | +The cluster-version operator (CVO) uses an update-mode when transitioning between releases, where the manifest operands are [sorted into a task-node graph](/dev-guide/cluster-version-operator/user/reconciliation.md#manifest-graph), and the CVO walks the graph reconciling. |
| 23 | +Since 4.1, the cluster-version operator has blocked during update and reconcile modes (but not during install mode) on `Degraded=True` ClusterOperator. |
| 24 | +This enhancement proposes ignoring `Degraded` when deciding whether to block on a ClusterOperator manifest. |
| 25 | + |
| 26 | +## Motivation |
| 27 | + |
| 28 | +The goal of blocking on manifests with sad resources is to avoid further destabilization. |
| 29 | +For example, if we have not reconciled a namespace manifest or ServiceAccount RoleBinding, there's no point in trying to update the consuming operator Deployment. |
| 30 | +Or if we are unable to update the Kube-API-server operator, we don't want to inject [unsupported kubelet skew][kubelet-skew] by asking the machine-config operator to update nodes. |
| 31 | + |
| 32 | +However, blocking the update on a sad resource has the downside that later manifest-graph task-nodes are not reconciled, while the CVO waits for the sad resource to return to happiness. |
| 33 | +We maximize safety by blocking when progress would be risky, while continuing when progress would be safe, and possibly helpful. |
| 34 | + |
| 35 | +Our expirience with `Degraded=True` blocks turns up cases like: |
| 36 | + |
| 37 | +* 4.6 `Degraded=True` on an unreachable, user-provided node, with monitoring reporting `UpdatingnodeExporterFailed`, network reporting `RolloutHung`, and machine-config reporting `MachineConfigDaemonFailed`. |
| 38 | + But those ClusterOperator were all still `Available=True`, and in 4.10 and later, monitoring workloads are guarded by PodDisruptionBudgets (PDBs) |
| 39 | + |
| 40 | +### User Stories |
| 41 | + |
| 42 | + |
| 43 | +> "As a _role_, I want to _take some action_ so that I can _accomplish a |
| 44 | +goal_." |
| 45 | + |
| 46 | +Make the change feel real for users, without getting bogged down in |
| 47 | +implementation details. |
| 48 | + |
| 49 | +Here are some example user stories to show what they might look like: |
| 50 | + |
| 51 | +* As a cluster administrator, I want the ability to defer recovering `Degraded=True` ClusterOperators without slowing ClusterVersion updates. |
| 52 | + |
| 53 | +### Goals |
| 54 | + |
| 55 | +ClusterVersion updates will no longer block on ClusterOperators solely based on `Degraded=True`. |
| 56 | + |
| 57 | +Summarize the specific goals of the proposal. How will we know that |
| 58 | +this has succeeded? A good goal describes something a user wants from |
| 59 | +their perspective, and does not include the implementation details |
| 60 | +from the proposal. |
| 61 | + |
| 62 | +### Non-Goals |
| 63 | + |
| 64 | +* Adjusting how the cluster-version operator treats `Available` and `versions` in ClusterOperator status. |
| 65 | + The CVO will still block on `Available=False` ClusterOperator, and will also still block on `status.versions` reported in the ClusterOperator's release manifest. |
| 66 | + |
| 67 | +* Adjusting whether `Degraded` ClusterOperator conditions propagated through to the ClusterVersion `Failing` condition. |
| 68 | + As with the current install mode, the sad condition will be propagated through to `Failing=True`, unless outweighed by a more serious condition like `Available=False`. |
| 69 | + |
| 70 | +## Proposal |
| 71 | + |
| 72 | +The cluster-version operator currently has [a mode switch][cvo-degraded-mode-switch] that makes `Degraded` ClusterOperator a non-blocking condition that is still proagated through to `Failing`. |
| 73 | +This enhancement proposes making that an unconditional `UpdateEffectReport`, regardless of the CVO's current mode (installing, updating, reconciling, etc.). |
| 74 | + |
| 75 | +### Workflow Description |
| 76 | + |
| 77 | +Cluster administrators will be largely unaware of this feature. |
| 78 | +They will no longer have ClusterVersion update progress slowed by `Degraded=True` ClusterOperators, so there will be less admin involvement there. |
| 79 | +They will continue to be notified of `Degraded=True` ClusterOperators via [the `warning` `ClusterOperatorDegraded` alert][ClusterOperatorDegraded] and the `Failing=True` ClusterVersion condition. |
| 80 | + |
| 81 | +### API Extensions |
| 82 | + |
| 83 | +No API extensions are needed for this proposal. |
| 84 | + |
| 85 | +### Topology Considerations |
| 86 | + |
| 87 | +#### Hypershift / Hosted Control Planes |
| 88 | + |
| 89 | +HyperShift's ClusterOperator context is the same as standalone, so it will receive the same benefits from the same cluster-version operator code change, and does not need special consideration. |
| 90 | + |
| 91 | +#### Standalone Clusters |
| 92 | + |
| 93 | +Yes, the enhancement is expected to improve the update experience on standalone, by decoupling ClusterVersion update completion from recovering `Degraded=True` ClusterOperators, granting the cluster administrator the flexibility to address update speed and operator degradation independently. |
| 94 | + |
| 95 | +#### Single-node Deployments or MicroShift |
| 96 | + |
| 97 | +Single-node's ClusterOperator context is the same as standalone, so it will receive the same benefits from the same cluster-version operator code change, and does not need special consideration. |
| 98 | +This change is a minor tweak to existing CVO code, so it is not expected to impact resource consumption. |
| 99 | + |
| 100 | +MicroShift updates are managed via RPMs, without a cluster-version operator, so it is not exposed to the ClusterVersion updates this enhancement is refining, and not affected by the changes proposed in this enhancement. |
| 101 | + |
| 102 | +### Implementation Details/Notes/Constraints |
| 103 | + |
| 104 | +The code change is expected to be a handful of lines, as discussed in [the *Proposal* section](#proposal), so there are no further implementation details needed. |
| 105 | + |
| 106 | +### Risks and Mitigations |
| 107 | + |
| 108 | +The risk would be that there are some ClusterOperators who currently rely on the cluster-version operator blocking during updates on ClusterOperators that are `Available=True`, `Degraded=True`, and which set the release manifest's expected `versions`. |
| 109 | +As discussed in [the *Motivation* section](#motivation), we're not currently aware of any such ClusterOperators. |
| 110 | +If any turn up, we can mitigate by [declaring conditional update risks](targeted-update-edge-blocking.md) using the existing `cluster_operator_conditions{condition="Degraded"}` PromQL metric, while teaching the relevant operators to set `Available=False` and/or without their `versions` bumps until the issue that needs to block further ClusterVersion update progress has been resolved. |
| 111 | + |
| 112 | +How will security be reviewed and by whom? |
| 113 | +Unclear. Feedback welcome. |
| 114 | + |
| 115 | +How will UX be reviewed and by whom? |
| 116 | +Unclear. Feedback welcome. |
| 117 | + |
| 118 | +### Drawbacks |
| 119 | + |
| 120 | +As discussed in [the *Risks* section](#risks-and-mitigations), the main drawback is changing behavior that we've had in place for many years. |
| 121 | +But we do not expect much customer pushback based on "hey, my update completed?! I expected it to stick on this sad component...". |
| 122 | +We do expect it to reduce customer frustration when they want the update to complete, but for reasons like administrative siloes do no have the ability to recover a component from minor degradation themselves. |
| 123 | + |
| 124 | +## Test Plan |
| 125 | + |
| 126 | +**Note:** *Section not required until targeted at a release.* |
| 127 | + |
| 128 | +Consider the following in developing a test plan for this enhancement: |
| 129 | +- Will there be e2e and integration tests, in addition to unit tests? |
| 130 | +- How will it be tested in isolation vs with other components? |
| 131 | +- What additional testing is necessary to support managed OpenShift service-based offerings? |
| 132 | + |
| 133 | +No need to outline all of the test cases, just the general strategy. Anything |
| 134 | +that would count as tricky in the implementation and anything particularly |
| 135 | +challenging to test should be called out. |
| 136 | + |
| 137 | +All code is expected to have adequate tests (eventually with coverage |
| 138 | +expectations). |
| 139 | + |
| 140 | +## Graduation Criteria |
| 141 | + |
| 142 | +There are no API changes proposed by this enhancement, which only affects sad-path handling, so we expect the code change to go straight to the next generally-available release, without feature gating or staged graduation. |
| 143 | + |
| 144 | +### Dev Preview -> Tech Preview |
| 145 | + |
| 146 | +Not applicable. |
| 147 | + |
| 148 | +### Tech Preview -> GA |
| 149 | + |
| 150 | +Not applicable. |
| 151 | + |
| 152 | +### Removing a deprecated feature |
| 153 | + |
| 154 | +Not applicable. |
| 155 | + |
| 156 | +## Upgrade / Downgrade Strategy |
| 157 | + |
| 158 | +This enhancement only affects the cluster-version operator's internal processing of longstanding ClusterOperator APIs, so there are no skew or compatability issues. |
| 159 | + |
| 160 | +## Version Skew Strategy |
| 161 | + |
| 162 | +This enhancement only affects the cluster-version operator's internal processing of longstanding ClusterOperator APIs, so there are no skew or compatability issues. |
| 163 | + |
| 164 | +## Operational Aspects of API Extensions |
| 165 | + |
| 166 | +There are no API changes proposed by this enhancement. |
| 167 | + |
| 168 | +## Support Procedures |
| 169 | + |
| 170 | +This enhancement is a small pivot in how the cluster-version operator processes ClusterOperator manifests during updates. |
| 171 | +As discussed in [the *Drawbacks* section](#drawbacks), we do not expect cluster admins open support cases related to this change. |
| 172 | + |
| 173 | +## Alternatives |
| 174 | + |
| 175 | +We could continue with the current approach, and absorb the occasional friction it causes. |
| 176 | + |
| 177 | +## Infrastructure Needed |
| 178 | + |
| 179 | +No additional infrastructure is needed for this enhancement. |
| 180 | + |
| 181 | +[ClusterOperatorDegraded]: https://github.com/openshift/cluster-version-operator/blob/820b74aa960717aae5431f783212066736806785/install/0000_90_cluster-version-operator_02_servicemonitor.yaml#L106-L124 |
| 182 | +[cvo-mode-switch]: https://github.com/openshift/cluster-version-operator/blob/820b74aa960717aae5431f783212066736806785/pkg/cvo/internal/operatorstatus.go#L241-L245 |
| 183 | +[kubelet-skew]: https://kubernetes.io/releases/version-skew-policy/#kubelet |
0 commit comments