• Hacker News
  • new|
  • comments|
  • show|
  • ask|
  • jobs|
  • compumike 15 hours

    Author here! If you're running a Kubernetes cluster, I recommend you check `kubectl version` and see if you're running "Server Version: v1.36.[0,1,2]". If so, you may want to use the one-liner at the end of the article to check your "process_resident_memory_bytes" on each node, and consider restarting kubelet as a temporary workaround to tame the memory leak until v1.36.3 is released.

  • fsuts 35 minutes

    Not all heroes wear capes! Well done

  • rirze 1 hours

    Very cool. It's often daunting to contribute to such a well-established and recognizable project, but this is exactly how it should work.

  • __turbobrew__ 20 minutes

    A good reason to health check the kubelet process and restart it when the checks fail.

    compumike 5 minutes

    What kind of health checks? In my case, the kubelet process was staying alive and responsive to queries, I believe due to:

      # cat /proc/$(pgrep kubelet)/oom_score_adj
      -999
      
      (from OOMScoreAdjust=-999 in /etc/systemd/system/kubelet.service)  
    
    With this score, the Linux OOM killer wouldn't touch it, but any of my Pods were fair game.

  • CamouflagedKiwi 59 minutes

    Nice find.

    Can't help but feel this is one of the subtle traps hidden beneath the advice that contexts aren't supposed to be stored. I know it's not always that easy, of course.

    compumike 30 minutes

    Thanks. I know there's a `go vet` tool that's run as part of Kubernetes CI, and one of its checks is:

      lostcancel: check cancel func returned by context.WithCancel is called
    
    I'm not 100% sure why `go vet` didn't catch this issue, but storing the cancelFn in the struct is probably part of the reason. Any Go experts know if that's the case?