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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Upgrade etcd version to 3.1.10 in v1.9 #450

Closed
luxas opened this issue Sep 15, 2017 · 4 comments
Closed

Upgrade etcd version to 3.1.10 in v1.9 #450

luxas opened this issue Sep 15, 2017 · 4 comments
Assignees
@timothysc
Labels
priority/important-longterm Important over the long term, but may not be staffed and/or may need multiple releases to complete.
Milestone
v1.9

Comments

@luxas
Copy link
Member

luxas commented Sep 15, 2017

Requires validation of etcd 3.1.10 from @kubernetes/sig-api-machinery-feature-requests and @kubernetes/sig-scalability-feature-requests.

Also filed #449 to set up similar suites for kubeadm to help this effort.

cc @timothysc @xiang90 @hongchaodeng
@luxas luxas added kind/enhancement priority/important-longterm Important over the long term, but may not be staffed and/or may need multiple releases to complete. labels Sep 15, 2017
@luxas luxas added this to the v1.9 milestone Sep 15, 2017
@ncdc
Copy link
Member

ncdc commented Sep 15, 2017

What about 3.2.x?

@liggitt
Copy link
Member

liggitt commented Sep 15, 2017

specifically, 3.2.6+ to pick up a fix for etcd-io/etcd#8411 which can leave an API server with a persistently stale watch cache

@luxas
Copy link
Member Author

luxas commented Sep 15, 2017

For new clusters, that'd be ok
Basically I just want to use a version that is validated for the rest of k8s and scale-tested.
If that is 3.2.x, I'm ok with that.

However, an upgrade from 3.0.x to 3.2.y should work, but 3.0.x to 3.1.y is definitely safer...

@luxas
Copy link
Member Author

luxas commented Oct 3, 2017

Fixed with kubernetes/kubernetes#49393

@luxas luxas closed this as completed Oct 3, 2017
@jbeda jbeda mentioned this issue Oct 10, 2017
Closed
@luxas luxas mentioned this issue Dec 25, 2017
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@timothysc timothysc

Labels
priority/important-longterm Important over the long term, but may not be staffed and/or may need multiple releases to complete.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
v1.9
Development

No branches or pull requests
4 participants
@ncdc @timothysc @liggitt @luxas