Change:
if hc != nil { hcNames = append(hcNames, hc.Name) } <del> clusterID, err := GetClusterID(c) if err != nil { retErr = fmt.Errorf("%vn%v", retErr, err) return } </del> if err := gceCloud.DeleteExternalTargetPoolAndChecks(nil, loadBalancerName, region, clusterID, hcNames...); err != nil && !IsGoogleAPIHTTPErrorCode(err, http.StatusNotFound) { retErr = fmt.Errorf("%vn%v", retErr, err)

Discussion:
A couple of gce-scale-performance runs failed due to failing to delete the network, which in turn was due to a couple of leaked firewall-rules (I manually deleted the network later to fix it): Ref: https://k8s- cc (assigning to you, feel free to reassign as apt)
I digged up a bit and seems like the firewall is created by the service-controller as part of , which should've been deleted in but wasn't. Feel free to close the bug if you think it's just a one-off failure.
Took a quick look, both and runs have these firewall rules initially but doesn't, which indicates something happen in the run. But oddly there is no build log, logs in artifacts are empty as well. Likely that run is badly broken so cluster got terminated forcibly in the middle, and resource are leaked. Will observe this suite a bit longer. /assign /unassign
I think it wasn't caused by this job. We're running this one () and on alternating days in the project. And they both create clusters (network, etc) with the same name. And I think of gce-scale-correctness leaked the firewall (and hence the network) as it runs some correctness tests around load-balancer. That likely caused this job to fail.
Ref The resource leak was likely caused by test timeout --- GCE operations took too long to finish and the cluster was terminated ahead. Because heathcheck and firewall cleanup in gce controller are coupled with targetpool deletion, deleting cluster while targetpool deletion is pending will leak the resources.
Fyi - this affected gce-scale-performance again (ref: run 35 of https://k8s-): Is there a way to make sure they get deleted even in case of a timeout? I have a dirty hack in my mind - of deleting those as part of kube-down. Maybe you have some better suggestions?
Consider the frequency this happens, I think it makes sense to implement some cleanup logic within the e2e test. Will give it a try.
Turned out we already have such cleanup logic, it is just we use an incorrect firewall name and forget to cleanup node health check resources as well. Sent to fix.
Thanks for fixing!
Sure thing, thanks for reporting!
Reopening as it seems like the issue is not fixed yet.

For e.g run-16 of https://k8s- failed due to this: This is also affecting our job, both of them being release-blocking jobs. Could you PTAL?
By any chance we could make and use different names so that it will be easier to target the leaking point? Also, in that way one leaking job will not affect the other. Or maybe we could also make different runs use different network names? The scalability job is expensive so it might be great if newer runs wouldn't be affected by the leaked resources from previous run. I haven't figured out how exactly and when the resource are leaked, but given that the operation cycle of service controller and e2e test process proceed in an asynchronous manner (plus always fail ESIPP tests ), there might be chances we will leak resource even after we put cleanup logic in e2e test. Will take a deeper look later. Also what you suggested before --- deleting those as part of kube-down --- may also be a viable solution.
I thought about this option, but it's better for them to share the same name for network and other resources (instance-prefix, etc) because that way we ensure that if one of them leaks some resources, the other will delete them during it's startup. Else we'll run out of quota in the scale-testing project (for e.g wrt routes or VMs) by trying to start another 5k-node cluster while the previous one still exists. I went to pantheon and deleted the network and that went through successfully (though fails). Wonder if the delete command in kube-down can be modified to delete all sub-resources of the network (like firewalls, etc) before deleting it?
Sounds reasonable to me. We may need yet another env to trigger it? As deleting everything correlated to that network sounds a bit dangerous.
Well, took another look, seems like the actual thing that prevented us from deleting the network was mostly firewall rules, and deleting those sounds safe enough if we are going to delete the network anyway. Will try to make a PR for this.
Thanks for fixing the issue with firewalls. However seems like the latest run of gce-scale-correctness still leaked the network (but doesn't seem due to firewall this time): ref: https://k8s-
I thought we're deleting the subnets in this case too when we're using custom subnets mode.

Yep, we are supposed to. I think the scale CI hit the same issue as described. I've sent a PR for fixing it
For the time-being I manually deleted the subnets and then the network to unblock the next scale job run. But it would be good to have this fixed soon. cc
Closing this issue as we're now deleting all remaining firewall rules in the network before deleting the network itself in kube-down. For other networking resources in general, we have issue .