Change:
execAffinityTestForNonLBServiceWithTransition(f, cs, svc) }) <del> // TODO: Get rid of [DisabledForLargeClusters] tag when issue #56138 is fixed. // [LinuxOnly]: Windows does not support session affinity. ginkgo.It("should have session affinity work for LoadBalancer service with ESIPP on [Slow] [DisabledForLargeClusters] [LinuxOnly]", func() { // L4 load balancer affinity `ClientIP` is not supported on AWS ELB. e2eskipper.SkipIfProviderIs("aws") svc := getServeHostnameService("affinity-lb-esipp") svc.Spec.Type = v1.ServiceTypeLoadBalancer svc.Spec.ExternalTrafficPolicy = v1.ServiceExternalTrafficPolicyTypeLocal execAffinityTestForLBService(f, cs, svc) }) // TODO: Get rid of [DisabledForLargeClusters] tag when issue #56138 is fixed. // [LinuxOnly]: Windows does not support session affinity. ginkgo.It("should be able to switch session affinity for LoadBalancer service with ESIPP on [Slow] [DisabledForLargeClusters] [LinuxOnly]", func() { // L4 load balancer affinity `ClientIP` is not supported on AWS ELB. e2eskipper.SkipIfProviderIs("aws") svc := getServeHostnameService("affinity-lb-esipp-transition") svc.Spec.Type = v1.ServiceTypeLoadBalancer svc.Spec.ExternalTrafficPolicy = v1.ServiceExternalTrafficPolicyTypeLocal execAffinityTestForLBServiceWithTransition(f, cs, svc) }) // TODO: Get rid of [DisabledForLargeClusters] tag when issue #56138 is fixed. // [LinuxOnly]: Windows does not support session affinity. ginkgo.It("should have session affinity work for LoadBalancer service with ESIPP off [Slow] [DisabledForLargeClusters] [LinuxOnly]", func() { // L4 load balancer affinity `ClientIP` is not supported on AWS ELB. e2eskipper.SkipIfProviderIs("aws") svc := getServeHostnameService("affinity-lb") svc.Spec.Type = v1.ServiceTypeLoadBalancer svc.Spec.ExternalTrafficPolicy = v1.ServiceExternalTrafficPolicyTypeCluster execAffinityTestForLBService(f, cs, svc) }) // TODO: Get rid of [DisabledForLargeClusters] tag when issue #56138 is fixed. // [LinuxOnly]: Windows does not support session affinity. ginkgo.It("should be able to switch session affinity for LoadBalancer service with ESIPP off [Slow] [DisabledForLargeClusters] [LinuxOnly]", func() { // L4 load balancer affinity `ClientIP` is not supported on AWS ELB. e2eskipper.SkipIfProviderIs("aws") svc := getServeHostnameService("affinity-lb-transition") svc.Spec.Type = v1.ServiceTypeLoadBalancer svc.Spec.ExternalTrafficPolicy = v1.ServiceExternalTrafficPolicyTypeCluster execAffinityTestForLBServiceWithTransition(f, cs, svc) }) </del> ginkgo.It("should implement service.kubernetes.io/service-proxy-name", func() { ns := f.Namespace.Name numPods, servicePort := 3, defaultServeHostnameServicePort

Discussion:
Which jobs are flaking: gce-master-scale-correctness Which test(s) are flaking: Services should be able to change the type and ports of a service [Slow] Testgrid link: https://k8s- Reason for failure: Test timeouts in ~half of the runs since it was enabled here: /sig scalability /sig network
/cc /cc
The context is - the problems are strictly related to scale - 5k-node jobs are timing out. I very briefly skimmed through the test and didn't see anything obviously suspicious (apart from the fact there are gazillions long timeouts there, which alltogether sum up long hours). That said - it seems to me that there are effectively two separate tests inside it: one for TCP one for UDP They don't seem to share anything with each other. - would it make sense to split this test two effectively two separate tests: one for TCP and one for UDP. (I guess it would also allow us to share some code there).
[And potentially it could help with debugging the problem if it is strictly related to only one of those cases...]
I wanted to focus on this past week but I didn´t have time, this is my list of more expensive times and approx average duration, all of the sig-network ones use LoadBalancers. I wanted to time the test to understand if there are places where can save time ... I don´t have much context on those tests, maybe Tim can help us more, but this comment makes me think that the use of both protocols is intended
/triage accepted
/triage accepted It's been a very long time since I touched this, and I recall holding my nose on it in the first place. Splitting TCP from UDP seems reasonable if we can run them in parallel. we'll want to share the flow, and parameterize some shared funcs. I don't know that this will prevent test timeouts, though.
We could use a volunteer to go poke at this, and see how hard it will really be.
You mean "forcing them to run in parallel"? Or "allowing them to run in parallel"? The later doesn't require any additiona work. The former I think mean that it will still have to be a single test (just the code will be organized better) and that won't really help with debugging (nor preventing timeouts).

this was discussed yesterday in sig-net meeting and my understanding was to split current test in 2 different so the test can run in parallel, if you want to do so and one protocol doesn´t have to wait for the other. I think that is what you meant here
As long as we CAN parallelize. Creating LBs can be sloooooow. :P Antonio Ojea <:
Reopening - I don't think just splitting will address the problem. It may help us with debugging though...
With the split we moved from 60 mins to run the test, to run 2 tests in [30-40] mins each https://k8s- Seems a win :smile:
Awesome - that's something I was silently counting for TBH :) [I doubt it will fix flakiness, but maybe it will make it easier to debug...]
Actually - I think we're getting close thanks to the two changes ( + this one). Here is the run: This particular one filed on UDP (not sure if it's just UDP-related, or just manifested with UDP now). And we have a clear failure now: In my PR I decreased the timeout from 2h to 45m, as it seemed to me that in the past it should be enough. But it failed on 45m timeout here. So I think the next question now is: is it that slow - that we need more than 45m or something isn't working as expected (either in the k8s itself or in the test) But I think we have a clear single place to look at now.
Actually - the full stacktrace: So it's this line that failed: What is interesting is that something was changing during those 45 minutes:
Note that it's 4th time we actually wait for LB in this test. The failure happens after the pod were scaled down to 0 and then to 1. So that makes me think, that's it's actually not LB-related, but rather something internally in k8s, becuase L4 LB doesn't depend on pods - it targets nodes...
If it is always UDP, I start to see ghosts between GCE and UDP ... we only have KIND to compare against, or do we have some other non gce enviroment?

I mean, there are other tests failing in UDP , and show much more failures in GCE than in kind
- this does not look "normal". Can we give some prio to helping track this flake?
hmm interesting. we will investigate.
/assign
- any progress on this?
I haven't had a chance to look into this yet. I will prioritize it this week.
Digging through the logs I believe this was a bug in the test code that was fixed by . In the test, the service port changes around 12:33. However due to the bug, the test continues to use the old service port as seen in the test output: The port should be 81. I believe the following sequence occurs from this point: 1) The reachability test fails in the beginning because the service has changed the port and the load balancer has not been updated yet resulting in the error. 1) Around 12:38, the service controller is syncing the service and notices that the service port has changed and starts to delete the forwarding rule causing the error to change to . 1) Once the forwarding rule is recreated, the error goes back to being because the forwarding rule exists but the wrong port is used. Looking at , the test runs after the one linked have all passed. Is there anything else that needs to be investigated as part of this issue?
OK - the test was quite flaky in the past but indeed it didn't flake for the last 3 weeks (neither this nor TCP one). I'm fine with closing this one - we can open a new one if this happens again. - thanks for debugging. - it seems that the splitting of the test actually made things waay better. Which is great.