Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[release-3.27] iam: separate backoffs, add jitter, and increase for conflicts #2

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

stbenjam
Copy link
Member

@stbenjam stbenjam commented Dec 22, 2021

Cherry-pick of my proposed fix upstream to 3.27 (what's used in the 4.10 openshift installer)

We can hold off on merging this for now, to give the upstreams folks a chance to review.


Within our project, we can have multiple instances of terraform
modifying iam policies, and in many cases these instances are kicked off
at exactly the same time. We're running into errors where we exceed the
backoff max (which in reality is 16 seconds, not 30). Also, Google
reccomends that backoffs contain jitter [1] to prevent clients from
retrying all at once in synchronized waves.

This change (1) separates the 3 distinct backoffs used in the iam policy
read-modify-write cycle, (2) introduces jitter on each retry, and (3)
increases the conflict max backoff to 5 minutes.

[1] https://cloud.google.com/iot/docs/how-tos/exponential-backoff

Within our project, we can have multiple instances of terraform
modifying iam policies, and in many cases these instances are kicked off
at exactly the same time. We're running into errors where we exceed the
backoff max (which in reality is 16 seconds, not 30). Also, Google
reccomends that backoffs contain jitter [1] to prevent clients from
retrying all at once in synchronized waves.

This change (1) separates the 3 distinct backoffs used in the iam policy
read-modify-write cycle, (2) introduces jitter on each retry, and (3)
increases the conflict max backoff to 5 minutes.

[1] https://cloud.google.com/iot/docs/how-tos/exponential-backoff
@openshift-bot
Copy link

Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.

Mark the issue as fresh by commenting /remove-lifecycle stale.
Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close.
Exclude this issue from closing by commenting /lifecycle frozen.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

/lifecycle stale

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale. label Mar 22, 2022
@openshift-bot
Copy link

Stale issues rot after 30d of inactivity.

Mark the issue as fresh by commenting /remove-lifecycle rotten.
Rotten issues close after an additional 30d of inactivity.
Exclude this issue from closing by commenting /lifecycle frozen.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

/lifecycle rotten
/remove-lifecycle stale

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added lifecycle/rotten Denotes an issue or PR that has aged beyond stale and will be auto-closed. and removed lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale. labels Apr 21, 2022
@stbenjam stbenjam closed this Apr 22, 2022
@stbenjam stbenjam deleted the fix-retries-ocp branch April 22, 2022 00:39
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
lifecycle/rotten Denotes an issue or PR that has aged beyond stale and will be auto-closed.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants