Closed cescribanohs closed 1 day ago
Welcome @cescribanohs!
It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes-sigs/aws-efs-csi-driver 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.
You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.
You can also check if kubernetes-sigs/aws-efs-csi-driver has its own contribution guidelines.
You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.
If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!
Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. :smiley:
Hi @cescribanohs. Thanks for your PR.
I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test
on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.
Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test
label.
I understand the commands that are listed here.
/ok-to-test
/ok-to-test
All test are passing right now. Ty
Hi, any approvals or comments are welcomed. Thank you
Don't we need to update node-daemonset yaml file?
I did not test this but is it necessary to update both Controller and Daemonset files to include the PORT_RANGE_UPPER_BOUND
and also did you get chance to test this?
Don't we need to update node-daemonset yaml file? I did not test this but is it necessary to update both Controller and Daemonset files to include the
PORT_RANGE_UPPER_BOUND
and also did you get chance to test this?
I have updated both daemonset and deployment but in this case they will pick the default value https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/aws-efs-csi-driver/pull/1469/files#diff-5f5292175c0b29881ee742f0daf838980f771e03b22525cc574b4763b749a0ffR291 We have pushed this changes mapping a new image instead of repo: https://kubernetes-sigs.github.io/aws-efs-csi-driver/ in our dev cluster and working ok. Do you have in mind any other tests to be performed? Thank you in advance
Any additional comments? Can we approve this please? Thank you in advance
can you please squash the commits?
@mskanth972 Done. Thank you
can you please squash the commits?
/lgtm /approve
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED
This pull-request has been approved by: cescribanohs, mskanth972
The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
The pull request process is described here
We have a large amount of pvc deploys in our cluster and often we reach the error
Could not mount
pvc due to available portEven the port_range_upper_bound property has been increased recently https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/aws-efs-csi-driver/blob/b0af6bc4965ec01c86cdc3792c4207f24197d65e/pkg/driver/efs_watch_dog.go#L74 still we need this number to be configurable as FIPS it is at the moment.
For this reason, adding a new helm value that can instantiated from a
kustomize.config.k8s.io/v1beta1
component it is our goal.What testing is done?
We have deployed in our dev environment through argoCD