Troubleshooting: Verify BMO and Ironic healthy #490
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Lennart Jern <[email protected]>
metal3-io-bot
added
the
size/L
lentzi90
force-pushed
the
lentzi90/troubleshooting
branch
from
6a0118a to
b0357a5
Compare
|
/cc @dtantsur |
lentzi90
force-pushed
the
lentzi90/troubleshooting
branch
from
b0357a5 to
f06cb29
Compare
docs/user-guide/src/SUMMARY.md
Outdated
| @@ -46,4 +45,5 @@ | |||
| - [Try it (for developers)](developer_environment/tryit.md) | |||
| - [Version Support](version_support.md) | |||
| - [Project Security Policy](security_policy.md) | |||
| - [Troubleshooting FAQ](troubleshooting.md) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It could be harder to discover the guide here, especially for people who're not interested in IPAM or even CAPM3. Maybe at least move it after IPAM and group the last 3 items into something like "For developers"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I moved it up now but didn't add the group for now. The thing is, if we add a group, that has to link to a proper page also or the build fails. So we would need an "intro page" for that group. I'm also a bit hesitant to "hide" the version support and security policy in that way since they may well be of interest to users. Finally, if we do the group, it would be logical to also change the path (e.g. /security_policy.md -> development/security_policy.md) and I believe we have links to the policy from practically every repo in the organization 😬
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Don't move security policy, it must stay on top level.
| @@ -0,0 +1,72 @@ | |||
| # Troubleshooting | |||
|
|
|||
| ## Verify that Ironic and Baremetal Operator are healthy | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Honestly, I liked the FAQ format where each title is how a user would google it. Like, what would prompt an operator to look at this section you're adding?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sure, I also like that format, but I know also that an unhealthy Ironic or BMO could show itself in probably dozens of ways. It is more of a sanity check and something I would expect to direct users to when they are having issues that are hard to pinpoint. So I think it is important to have this somewhere. If you want, we can split this into troubleshooting and FAQ maybe?
Add section on how to verify that BMO and Ironic are healthy as well as example output for both healthy and unhealthy examples. Signed-off-by: Lennart Jern <[email protected]>
lentzi90
force-pushed
the
lentzi90/troubleshooting
branch
from
f06cb29 to
14edab6
Compare
|
New changes are detected. LGTM label has been removed. |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
| Make sure to check the logs also since Ironic may be stuck on "waiting for IP". | ||
|
|
||
| ```bash | ||
| kubectl -n baremetal-operator-system logs deploy/ironic |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I suspect this won't work with IrSO... maybe should an example using the just shown pod name ironic-6bcdcb99f8-6ldlz?
More importantly, this section lacks any pointers on what to do about the "waiting for IP" problem (check networking in IrSO or wherever we normally have it?)
Add section on how to verify that BMO and Ironic are healthy as well as
example output for both healthy and unhealthy examples.
I also moved the troubleshooting doc to the top level. My reasoning for this is that users may not know at what level an error is. They need a single place to search instead of first having to figure out if the issue belongs under BMO or CAPM3 or something else.
Part of #435