-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 442
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
Bump base memory requirements for python and go #3473
Bump base memory requirements for python and go #3473
Conversation
- When auto-instrumenting applications, I have noticed that default memory limits are too tight for some languages. This leads to the following: - Intermitent OOMKilled events in init container when auto-instrumenting python applications. Eventually the pods are able to start. - OOMKilled events for sidecar containers in go applications. The pods are not able to start. - 64Mi seems to be enough to fix these issues. While some tweaking by users may still be necessary, the operator should work out-of-the-box for all supported languages.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Please, add a changelog
Can you reproduce the OOMKills in a kind cluster? I'm not against bumping the requirements, but I don't understand why these containers would need it. The only thing they actually do is copy some files over to a shared volume. |
I am able to consistently reproduce the go OOMs with both k3d and kind: Interestingly, the python OOMs only happen with k3d, not kind. I am using a standard setup following the README. For testing, I use the rolldice applications with their manual instrumentation code stripped out. (I will move this to an issue and link it in the changelog) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This looks good to me, and I'm fine merging it as-is. But I'd like to understand why our e2e tests don't catch it, and ideally modify them to do so. @jcreixell could you open a follow-up issue to track that?
Description:
Link to tracking Issue(s):
#3479