Inconsistently shipping (CPU) architectures for which we have no testing

[Benjamin Elder]

Hello SIG Architecture (SIG Release & Testing CCed),

Today in the code organization meeting the somewhat off-topic question of why we ship & maintain platforms for which we have no test signal came up.

For context, currently we ship builds of some or all of Kubernetes for the following at least somewhat tested builds:

- linux/amd64
- windows/amd64 *

* "node" binaries and kubectl only

And the following wholly untested builds (to my knowledge)

- linux/386 *
- linux/arm
- linux/arm64
- linux/s390x
- linux/ppc64le
- windows/386 *
- darwin/amd64 *

* kubectl only

Many of these I doubt even have post-release conformance submissions from downstream (and Windows certainly doesn't but that's another topic).

Not too distantly we blocked linux/RISC-V builds on the premise that this would require a KEP and that we did not want to build for platforms that we do not have signal for.

The question now is: Should we continue to ship builds for platforms we have zero testing for?

I can understand why some of these would be sorely missed if removed, but I also think if that's the case then someone with a vested interest in them could ensure that they are tested.
As it stands we're 6 years into the project and these platforms still do not have any signal, yet we ship them and take at least some support load as well as not-super-trivial CI resources & increased release time building these.

Should we allow the RISC-V folks to add their build with the same level of support as e.g. s390x?
Or should we stop shipping ourselves some or all of these platforms for which we have no tests ...

Thank you for your time and consideration,

- Ben

[Calvin Hartwell]

Hi Ben, 

We are currently testing (internally) the release of our k8s distro on all of the above mentioned architectures, outside of 386, Windows, ppc64le and darwin. 

Is there any way we can help? 

Cheers,

    - Calvin / Кэльвин / كالفين / かるびん / קלווין

Calvin Hartwell Director of Field Engineering EMEA | Canonical Ltd. Mobile: +44 (0) 7534801542 |Email:calvin....@canonical.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "kubernetes-sig-release" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubernetes-sig-re...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-sig-release/CAOZRXm_Kfd0oj%2ByFeqmokcjxKxEqxaTB%2Bs%3DWfGwzdz-QoOJLCA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Derek Carr]

let's queue this up for discussion in next sig-arch meeting.

if volunteers interested in each architecture can speak up prior to that meeting and see if we can coalesce a group to address the gap, it would be great.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "kubernetes-sig-architecture" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubernetes-sig-arch...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-sig-architecture/CAF9mF2YL1MGGeXLCBH-v6W0zAxTdW1x6cV0c3JNhOQE_hBBBDg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tim Pepper]

In SIG Release we’ve gotten pinged this month about the possibility of IllumOS support in the project, opening another variation of the os/arch discussion in this thread.

 

Has any conversation happened out of band on this?

 

Will this be on Thursday’s agenda?

(not currently listed at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BlmHq5uPyBUDlppYqAAzslVbAO8hilgjqZUTaNXUhKM/edit#bookmark=kix.mvoqmhsy4ulz )

 

-- 

Tim Pepper

Orchestration Lead

VMware Open Source Technology Center

 

From: <kubernetes-...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Derek Carr <dec...@redhat.com>
Date: Thursday, June 11, 2020 at 12:43 PM
To: Calvin Hartwell <calvin....@canonical.com>
Cc: Benjamin Elder <benth...@google.com>, kubernetes-sig-architecture <kubernetes-si...@googlegroups.com>, kubernetes-sig-release <kubernetes-...@googlegroups.com>, kubernetes-sig-testing <kubernetes-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Inconsistently shipping (CPU) architectures for which we have no testing

 

let's queue this up for discussion in next sig-arch meeting.

if volunteers interested in each architecture can speak up prior to that meeting and see if we can coalesce a group to address the gap, it would be great.

 

On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 3:37 PM Calvin Hartwell <calvin....@canonical.com> wrote:

Hi Ben, 

 

We are currently testing (internally) the release of our k8s distro on all of the above mentioned architectures, outside of 386, Windows, ppc64le and darwin. 

 

Is there any way we can help? 

Cheers,

    - Calvin / Кэльвин / كالفين / かるびん / קלווין

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-sig-release/CAHROWxQty4X5CWpFG5%2B1U5mUXgwke3j3mh6mYeB15pq7pXmoEQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Belamaric]

It is on the agenda for tomorrow, Derek had requested that, we just hadn't added it yet. It's there now.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-sig-release/04732607-B4A5-4032-87F0-B35B78E2F2C2%40vmware.com.