Code change:
GCE has a length limit of 63 characters for its load balancer components (target pools and forwarding rules), and AWS has a length limit of 32 characters. Our current load balancer name construction of clustername-namespace-servicename can exceed both limits, especially AWS's. We should use a shorter name construction method less likely to hit these limits.
Thanks for filing this Alex. My suggestion would be to use a simple UID, as per utils.NewUID(). We'll need to store the mapping from {clustername, namespace, servicename} -UID somewhere stable like etcd. Using anything based directly on {cluster, namespace, name}, for example a stable hash of each, has the problem that the aforementioned tuple is not unique over time. This raises the possibility of e.g. the following scenario: creates mycluster/mynamespace/myservicename, which creates external load balancer named stablehash(mycluster,mynamespace,myservicename) deletes mycluster/mynamespace/myservicename, but at the time MyCloudProvider is down, so kubernetes can't delete ELB named stablehash(mycluster,mynamespace,myservicename). Kubernetes keeps trying in the background to delete the ELB. the mean time user creates a new service named the same as her old one mycluster/mynamespace/myservicename. Kubernetes tries to create an associated ELB named stablehash(mycluster,mynamespace,myservicename), but this fails, because the ELB exists already due to 2 above. ... etc. Badness ensues.
Assigning to Chao Xu, as this makes for a good starter bug.
Hmmmm.... can't seem to assign to caesarxuchao yet. Not sure why.
He has to have write privileges on the repo before issues/PRs can be assigned to him.
But we have many contributors with issues assigned to them that are not in the kubernetes-write group (that only has 48 members). I must be missing something. How do I grant him write privileges on the repo?
We do? That's not how I understand it to work: If you want to add him, go .
has been because the load balancer name changes if the service's UID changes (e.g. if it's deleted and recreated). Think we can change this? A hash of cluster name, namespace, and service name should get around it, but there may be better ideas as well.
Sure. I'm not confident that I can fix this quickly. If it's urgent, maybe you can assign some one more experienced to fix it? One question: I guess the ELB's name should stay unchanged as long as the "zone+namespace+service name" doesn't change, am I right?
I think I'm the guilty party here. I was unaware that when we create a new service with the same name as a previously existing service, that it needed to keep the same load balancer name and IP. This seems broken to me, but I may be missing the larger context. We can quite safely roll back the change while we decide on the best alternative solution. Q , Chao Xu wrote:
I think the real breakage is that we don't have any way to claim an LB-IP at a larger lifespan than a single service. Alex, can you go back to OP and get a sense of what's happening there to trigger this? , Quinton Hoole wrote:
Will do. Even if the name is kept consistent as it was before, with the way everything currently works the IP won't be consistent.
yeah, I'm not positive that the name has to be consistent. What we need is a way to claim the same public IP address, and we already have that (at least for GCE) Assigning to me, and I'll validate the length requirements, make sure public ip assignment works for AWS and close out this issue.
Note there are two separate things here: (1) a purely-name-based construction can exceed length limits given a single service and (2) some form of across-service consistency is apparently needed. (1) is trivially solvable by either always using a hash or alternatively using a two-stage process where you generate a desired name and only hashify if it's longer than the length limits by truncating it and appending a hash of said name.
AWS's load balancer hasn't been merged yet, so there's not much to check out there. I'm going to be reducing the churn of load balancers later today, which should help prevent IP address changes for services that are modified.
I think we need to be able to figure out which Service an LB is attached to from the Service, so that LBs can't get orphaned. regarding being able to claim an LB IP. I don't think that is covered in revamp... , Brendan Burns wrote:
I think that we need to roll back and think this issue through a bit better. See comment on that PR.

Related discussion:
text: package gce_cloud import ( <ins> "crypto/md5" </ins> "fmt" "io" "io/ioutil"