Change:
if readyIn < 0 { framework.Failf("Pod became ready before startupProbe succeeded") } <del> if readyIn > 5*time.Second { framework.Failf("Pod became ready in %v, more than 5s after startupProbe succeeded. It means that the delay readiness probes were not initiated immediately after startup finished.", readyIn) </del> <ins> if readyIn > 25*time.Second { framework.Failf("Pod became ready in %v, more than 25s after startupProbe succeeded. It means that the delay readiness probes were not initiated immediately after startup finished.", readyIn) </ins> } })

Discussion:
<!-- Please only use this template for submitting reports about flaky tests or jobs (pass or fail with no underlying change in code) in Kubernetes CI --Seems to be impacting a few KIND jobs on the master branch the most, but also assorted other jobs see the triage link above Reported by Sample failure: /sig node <!-- Please see the deflaking doc () for more guidance! --
xref probing tests
/assign ref /triage accepted
Thanks Elana, still trying today... Does anyone know if we can use the kubelet logs in e2e tests?
Not very portably in cluster e2e tests at least. Maybe in node_e2e instead.
Have you considered that the issue is not with the test but with the underlying code in kubelet like detailed in this issue Like detailed in the issue I can reliably reproduce (on k8s 1.18) the startup probe passing within a few seconds, but the container is only marked as ready after about a minute.
there is already a fix in the 1.21 release for that (part of a bigger PR): And actually this test was to verify that part of the code, but unfortunately sometimes it doesn't respond as quick as it should (but never on my PC, only in ci/cd tests)...
Some recent flakes:
one of the most common flakes in kind jobs currently failures like: Mar 25 17:03:42.508: Pod became ready in 42.007286524s, more than 5s after startupProbe succeeded. It means that the delay readiness probes were not initiated immediately after startup finished.
Maybe we could speed up the review on
Thank you I will take a look. I'm making a pass through flakes tonight trying to identify if anything is on kind's end
I don't think it's kind... since running on my PC with kind it works 100%, I think the issue is either the resources... or contention in the queue as mentioned to in the comment
/milestone v1.22
commented on PR with the suggested fix
/reopen
Reopened this issue. <detailsIn response to : /reopen Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available . If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the repository.

</details
Yeah...
Thanks for your great work in keeping things in check
FYI
I have (finally) understood what's happening, and I can even explain why the deflake made things worse... Please have a look at the sleep before the worker starts to process probes: So, you have to remember that we have one worker per pod and per probe, and since we have these probe settings for the test: We have (PeriodSeconds=10) starting sometimes immediately (if the Kubelet has started since more than 10s) or after a quick sleep of rand10s. On the contrary, will likely sleep most of the time for rand60s. This causes a delay in the processing of notifications: If we are lucky, this delay is less than 5s and the test passes: Now you can understand why the deflaked settings were actually worse:
The reason I didn't spot these was that I usually start my cluster once for all and iterate on the tests... so the kubelet had plenty of time to start and I never ended in that sleep.
For the solution, I suggest we either remove the sleep completely, or we find something that would make all 3 probe workers start at the same time to avoid sync issues... For the record, I was able to spot this issue thanks to the following log error (because the channel was overflowing): What do you think ?
I have found another issue in that code: If has already ran (and failed), we go to L245 and don't probe via and therefore wait for the next tick, making the test fail.
This seems consistent with what I found when I was adding e2es for the new probe-level termination grace period and why I did my timing math the way I did.
/reopen I don't think this is fixed, I just hit it again and gubernator is still showing plenty of flakes:
Reopened this issue. <detailsIn response to : /reopen Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available . If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the repository. </details
how to check the exact commit used for each test?

For instance, I am not sure (from the name) that should include my latest fix...
In your PR the fix wasn't there:
you may send cherry-pick to 1.21 for which is using kubelet 1.21, not 1.22.
is using kubelet. Cherry-pick to 1.20 may be needed as well.
I have found this one that failed even with the fix: corresponding to:
I don't know what could explain this atm... but it seems we still have delay propagating container statuses.
In the job artifacts there are multiple places with this info including the clone records/logs, and In testgrid it's a row.
yeah afaict since the tests ran on my PR after your fix was merged into master, it showed the flake was still present :( Prow will always use the latest master when running CI.
Sorry for doubting what you said... I was probably in deny and hoped this annoyance was fixed once for all :(
Plan: we'll see if Clayton's pod lifecycle refactor and/or the jitter refactor for probes affects this.
Clayton's PR jitter refactor
since isn't (likely) coming to 1.22 we could cut off 90% of flakes by increasing to 15s delay:
it seems it fails even after merging so let's continue our discussion on slack
this is not a regression, our suggestion is not block release on it. feel free to remove the milestone
/milestone v1.23
In Kubelet maybe, but in the flakiness of the e2e tests it was. Unfortunately we can't easily explore the current state :/
In the release blocking jobs the frequency is not horrible now, so unblocking is probably fine, it is not as bad as it was. Outside of the release cycle this is still the flakiest test in some jobs, see e.g. where it's the only flake source we have on record currently.
if we end up needing it, we have a timing/period adjustment PR we can take that should help with the flakiness with