[tripleo][ci] container pulls failing
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
> , you have been rate limited by docker.io <http://docker.io>
> via the upstream mirror system and have hit .Â I've been
> discussing the issue w/ upstream infra, rdo-infra and a few CI
> >> 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
> >> For full transparency we're considering the following options.
> >> 1. move off of docker.io <http://docker.io> to 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
> > 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).Â There's a reason we
> didn't want to add more jobs because of these types of resource
> constraints.Â 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 .Â 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  for
the connection reset counts by workers versus the times the rate
limiting was triggered. See the details in the reported bug .
tl;dr -- for an example 5 sec interval 03:55:31,379 - 03:55:36,110:
Conn Reset Counts by a Worker PID:
which seems too much of (workers*reconnects) and triggers rate limiting