-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 40k
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
Remove nodeInfo endpoint from kubelet #6073
Comments
The plan was to get rid of /nodeinfo. I was also planning to rename type NodeSystemInfo to type NodeInfo, but maybe we should rename the field to NodeSystemInfo instead, since that seems slightly more informative to me. As part of #2098, I think it would be useful for Kubelet to export its current value of Node - either a copy of the last state sent to apiserver or the most recently updated state that will be next sent to apiserver (or both). |
Kubelet is also using the /nodeInfo endpoint: |
IIUC this means we can't get rid of it easily. Do you think it's still worth doing? |
@davidopp If I recall correctly, /nodeinfo endpoint is only used by nodecontroller now, the link is where kubelet expose the endpoint @gmarek I don't expect much difficulty to remove it. It's added here #5030 for node controller to fetch node info. Once you remove the sync_status=true, it should be easy. I'm not following the thread #2098, but @bgrant0607 are you suggesting we keep exposing node info even if node controller stops probing? I'm fine with that, but if so, I want to clean up the types I mentioned above, it's really confusing. |
No, I was suggesting that the Kubelet expose the same Node API as the apiserver, just for that Kubelet. |
ok. @gmarek I'm assigning this to myself for load balance the work. |
Yeah, sorry, what I saw was the definition, not another use. Looks like we can remove this. |
cc @nikhiljindal re #5475 |
Closed by #6702 |
/nodeInfo endpoint is added for nodecontroller to pull node info from kubelet. We need to evaluate if it's still necessary to keep it given this #6005
NodeInfo is also confusing in our api object
@davidopp @bgrant0607 @gmarek
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: