Skip to content

Adds ingress2 to perf_script and updates docs/output#3527

Closed
danehans wants to merge 4 commits intoistio:masterfrom
danehans:perf_script_update
Closed

Adds ingress2 to perf_script and updates docs/output#3527
danehans wants to merge 4 commits intoistio:masterfrom
danehans:perf_script_update

Conversation

@danehans
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Previously, the setup_perf_cluster.sh script deployed a single non-Istio Ingress and tools/README.md contained doc bugs. This PR adds another ingress for the fortio2 pod and updates/fixes tools/README.md.

@istio-testing
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Hi @danehans. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a istio member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Details

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

@danehans
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

/cc @ldemailly

@istio-merge-robot
Copy link
Copy Markdown

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
We suggest the following additional approver: rshriram

Assign the PR to them by writing /assign @rshriram in a comment when ready.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Details Needs approval from an approver in each of these OWNERS Files:

You can indicate your approval by writing /approve in a comment
You can cancel your approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

Execute kubectl -n $FORTIO_NAMESPACE expose deployment fortio1 --target-port=8080 --type=LoadBalancer
Execute kubectl -n $FORTIO_NAMESPACE run fortio2 --image=istio/fortio --port=8080
Execute kubectl -n $FORTIO_NAMESPACE expose deployment fortio2 --target-port=8080
Execute kubectl -n $FORTIO_NAMESPACE expose deployment fortio2 --target-port=8080 --type=LoadBalancer
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm trying to remember why I didn't put both as load balancer, there was a reason (maybe to compare perf/setup) but I forgot :/
technically for the fortio reference we don't really need direct access to the second service as it can be proxied by the first one

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The gce ingress controller requires a service to be exposed using type LoadBalancer or type NodePort. This is why you could not get the fortio2 ingress to work.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@ldemailly ldemailly Feb 16, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

not sure we need to expose fortio2 through loadbalancer, it's going to consume another external ip

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If we want to create an ingress for fortio2, then we need the fortio2 service to be of type LoadBalancer or type NodePort. This is a requirement of the gce ingress controller. I saw the note # Doesn't work somehow... in the script and came up with this fix.

# Doesn't work somehow...
function setup_non_istio_ingress2() {
cat <<_EOF_ | kubectl apply -n fortio -f -
function get_fortio2_k8s_ip() {
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

make 1 or 2 a parameter to the function, it's the exact same code

rules:
- http:
paths:
- path: /fortio1
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ah I see what I wanted here ... I was trying to use an (istio like) ingress spec to get the same setup

it'd be nice to make it work rather than just drop it ?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

OK. I was thinking that the ingress spec for fortio1 and fortio2 should be identical. Since the fortio1 spec worked, I used that as the reference.

Can we refactor the ing specs in a future PR?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

this one is supposed to be fortio1 and doesn't work in term of prefix - but yes I guess ingress setup we can change later

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Take a look at the entire file, specifically here. I did some copy/paste between the ingress specs that makes the review changes look weird.

@istio-merge-robot
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@danehans PR needs rebase

@istio-merge-robot istio-merge-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR needs to be rebased before being merged label Feb 22, 2018
@costinm
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

costinm commented Apr 17, 2018

Ping ? Is it still needed ?

@danehans
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@costinm that's up to @ldemailly

If not, feel free to close the PR.

@stale
Copy link
Copy Markdown

stale bot commented Jun 23, 2018

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had activity in the last 2 weeks. It will be closed in 2 weeks if no further activity occurs. Please feel free to give a status update now, ping for review, or re-open when it's ready. Thank you for your contributions!

@stale stale bot added the stale label Jun 23, 2018
@ldemailly
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I changed the diagram since. let’s close this and update as needed

@ldemailly ldemailly closed this Jun 25, 2018
@danehans danehans deleted the perf_script_update branch March 24, 2023 19:37
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

needs-rebase Indicates a PR needs to be rebased before being merged

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants