Change:
.
is this your turn?
Sure :) I will work on this! , Dawn Chen wrote:
Update: I'm testing v1.9.0~rc4. I'm running the following suite of tests (based on ) - , , .
Update: No tests failed in suite. This release has been looking good so far.
Update: No tests failed in suite. :smiley:
Update: tests passed.
Note, I'm think we want to set the flag from in
What dns options have to be set?
I would ask but I assume he the flag for a reason ;)
we can use dns-opt when we know we don't have to fall-back on older docker versions. We current have a (very clever) hack that works. We set the ndots option. , Brendan Burns wrote:
Docker has just released v1.9, so I think v1.9 should be validated on high priority.
yep, validation is underway by See above.
I have tested against most of the test suites. As of now there are no known issues. I'm planning on running soak tests next.
I haven't been able to find any issues. I will update HEAD to use docker v1.9 soon.
FYI: (Docker 1.9 serious performance issues)
Are the new /etc/hosts changes going to be an issue?
AFAIK, we want docker to not touch once the container is created.
re:/etc/hosts - we have our workaround which should dodge it entirely. , Vish Kannan wrote:
+1, why is K8S still on docker 1.7.1?
Docker v1.9.1 was released a few weeks ago.
it might be useful to run your mircobenchmark for docker v1.9 before we try to upgrade.
There are still some performance issues with v1.9.1. As of now I'm updating HEAD to run docker v1.9.1 for now to help identify other potential issues. , Yu-Ju Hong wrote:
Can we make sure v1.9.1 can pass e2e tests reliably before upgrading? I am dreading the endless test failures that we'll have to triage at the end of the day. The performance benchmark, e.g., at least can give us some idea about how this is going to affect kubelet.
Yes. Of course! , Yu-Ju Hong wrote:
I got the result I post before with docker 1.9: Go Version: 1.5.1 Docker Version: Client Version: 1.9.0, API version: 1.21 Server Version: 1.9.0, API version: 1.21
We are now running docker 1.9.1 on the Mesosphere K8s CI. However, this is a little ambiguous, because the containers that run the kubelets still use docker 1.8.2. This upgrade did, however, fix a regular problem we were having in our CI scripts on docker 1.7.1 where layer pulls would block and/or stall (without any other concurrent docker use).
Besides the performance issue I brought up at , there are a network related issue in docker 1.9.1 should affect k8s: cc/ & We should wait for 1.9.2 for whatever reason.
xref: , Dawn Chen wrote:
Introduction I benchmarked and with the following 3 experiments: periodically and , gradually increase the dead container number and alive container number. periodically and , gradually increase the operation interval. periodically and , gradually increase the number of goroutines which doing and . The metrics we measured: CPU usage. latency. latency. Benchmark Environment Cloud Provider: GCE VM Instance: n1-standard-2 (2 vCPUs, 7.5 GB memory) OS: Debian GNU/Linux 8.3 (jessie) Docker version: Experiment 1 Workflow: start -create containers -periodically -periodically -periodically -create containers -... -finish Environment Variable Operation interval: 200ms Container Number ! Latency Docker 1.8.3 ! Docker 1.9.1 ! CPU Usage Docker 1.8.3 ! Docker 1.9.1 ! Experiment 2 Workflow: start -periodically with increasing interval -periodically with increasing interval -periodically with increasing interval -finish Environment Variable Dead container number: 600 Alive container number: 200 Interval ! [all=true] Latency Docker 1.8.3 ! Docker 1.9.1 ! [all=false] Latency Docker 1.8.3 ! Docker 1.9.1 ! Interval ! Latency Docker 1.8.3 ! Docker 1.9.1 ! CPU Usage Docker 1.8.3 ! Docker 1.9.1 ! Experiment 3 Result Workflow: start-periodically with increasing groutines number -periodically with increasing groutines number -finish Environment Variable Dead container number: 600 Alive container number: 200 interval: 1s interval: 0.5s Routine Number ! The change rule of routine number is the same for and . [all=true] Latency Docker 1.8.3 ! Docker 1.9.1 ! Latency Docker 1.8.3 ! Docker 1.9.1 ! CPU Usage Docker 1.8.3 ! Docker 1.9.1 ! Conclusion There is no significant performance difference for and between docker 1.8.3 and docker 1.9.1. Benchmark Tool /cc

Discussion:
{% if grains.get('cloud', '') == 'gce' and grains.get('os_family', '') == 'Debian' and grains.get('oscodename', '') == 'wheezy' -%} <del> {% set docker_pkg_name='' %} {% set override_deb='' %} {% set override_deb_sha1='' %} {% set override_docker_ver='' %} </del> <ins> {% set docker_pkg_name='docker-engine' %} {% set override_deb='docker-engine_1.9.1-0~wheezy_amd64.deb' %} {% set override_deb_sha1='d682e2f0545e21f2d7309c2d87826aa566cc4af0' %} {% set override_docker_ver='1.9.1' %} </ins> # Ubuntu presents as os_family=Debian, osfullname=Ubuntu {% elif grains.get('cloud', '') == 'aws' and grains.get('os_family', '') == 'Debian'