-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.8k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[WIP]Mount raid0 device to /var #8692
Conversation
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: hongkailiu The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
/hold
|
OK so there's an important thing here, which is that the MCO will barf trying to apply this change in place (because we can't do it sanely). So after applying this update, we'll need to "rotate" the machineset: https://github.com/openshift/machine-api-operator/blob/master/FAQ.md#after-i-edit-a-machineset-how-can-i-replace-the-existing-machines |
Right that comes from ostreedev/ostree#859 but...well, let me double check this works! |
Argh, I think we don't support I'm trying to look at an ugly workaround. |
Not exactly. The core issue is that spec2 doesn't have the semantics needed for separate filesystems which can be mounted at specific points under So any "sensitive" mountpoints like |
Journal from the node.
|
OK, thanks.
Oh they do, the tricky part is we want both of them. And I didn't do any investigation that it was |
/hold |
@@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ spec: | |||
contents: |- | |||
[Mount] | |||
What=/dev/md/containerraid | |||
Where=/var/lib/containers | |||
Where=/var |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why were we running container raid in thefirst place?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The instance types have two attached NVMe devices. CI workload is heavily container images - what else do you suggest?
/close |
@cgwalters: Closed this PR. In response to this:
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. |
Follow up https://coreos.slack.com/archives/CHY2E1BL4/p1588274235304000?thread_ts=1588269732.276800&cid=CHY2E1BL4
/cc @stevekuznetsov @cgwalters