Change:
} }) <del> // TODO: Get rid of [DisabledForLargeClusters] tag when issue #56138 is fixed. </del> // [LinuxOnly]: Windows does not support session affinity. <del> ginkgo.It("should have session affinity work for LoadBalancer service with ESIPP on [Slow] [DisabledForLargeClusters] [LinuxOnly]", func() { </del> <ins> ginkgo.It("should have session affinity work for LoadBalancer service with ESIPP on [Slow] [LinuxOnly]", func() { </ins> // L4 load balancer affinity `ClientIP` is not supported on AWS ELB. e2eskipper.SkipIfProviderIs("aws")

Discussion:
Is this a BUG REPORT or FEATURE REQUEST?: /kind bug This is a followup from filed separately now that we're not tracking this as part of 1.9 release. The tests have been disabled with [DisabledForLargeClusters] tag for now, and this fact will be mentioned in the scalability validation report for v1.9. This issue tracks fixing the test so the tag can be removed and the test ran again in the large cluster. /assign /kind e2e-test-failure
Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity. Mark the issue as fresh with . Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close. If this issue is safe to close now please do so with . Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or . /lifecycle stale
/remove-lifecycle stale
Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity. Mark the issue as fresh with . Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close. If this issue is safe to close now please do so with . Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or . /lifecycle stale
/remove-lifecycle stale
Is this e2e test still broken?
Sorry for the confusion here. Currently this e2e test is disabled on extra large cluster due to some scalability issues with the load balancer related components. At the moment the issues haven't been completely resolved yet.
ok, adding priority so that I know it's not a 1.13 blocker. /priority important-longterm
cc - this is why the relevant tests for are not part of the e2e suite.
This issue is still valid --- some action items on top of my head: Figure out a plan to make service controller properly handle operations in parallel. Check on the status for cloud providers (especially GCP, which the test ran against) on handling large number of nodes as LB backends. /remove-triage unresolved
Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity. Mark the issue as fresh with . Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close. If this issue is safe to close now please do so with . Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or .

/lifecycle stale
Stale issues rot after 30d of inactivity. Mark the issue as fresh with . Rotten issues close after an additional 30d of inactivity. If this issue is safe to close now please do so with . Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or . /lifecycle rotten
/remove-lifecycle rotten /lifecycle frozen
/reopen Reopening as is being reverted in
Reopened this issue. <detailsIn response to : /reopen Reopening as is being reverted in 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
these tests are flaking in xref
cc since these were enabled by
Yeah - though these failures doesn't seem to be scale related, they seem to be test related to me. This basically means nodes without public ips: It's pretty much the same thing as (just for a different test). should be addressing these kinds of errors. [Not a release blocker for sure]
BTW - has been opened directly for this one.
... so since is closed, Can we close this and re-enable for large clusters ? (i.e. remove the Tag in that disables this test) ? I'm not up to speed on the history but 2 related notes I came across digging into related test today... 's a couple of TODOs in the code referencing this specific issue, but your above direct issue is now closed, so we can close this as well right?... And if so, we can remove the TODO on the test... -enabling the test ... not sure wether the timing is good right now (given that is open right now , which sparked my stumbling upon this issue :))
We tried to enable all of them and that caused us a bunch of issues and those had to be reverted: A couple tests were enabled later in: and those seem fine. The remaining (mostly session-affinity ones) had some issue, which so far we didn't have time to debug and I haven't heard a good explanation why those were failing. It's possible that they were improved with , but I doubt those would really cause the failures we've seen in the past. So until this is debugged (or at least understood) I'm reluctant to enabling them.