Skip to content

OCPBUGS-62095: CRI-O: set hard/soft file descriptor ulimits to 1048576 #5308

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
sdodson merged 1 commit into from
Oct 7, 2025
Merged

OCPBUGS-62095: CRI-O: set hard/soft file descriptor ulimits to 1048576 #5308

sdodson merged 1 commit into from
Oct 7, 2025

Conversation

@saschagrunert
Copy link
Member

@saschagrunert saschagrunert commented Sep 25, 2025

Change the default ulimits for CRI-O to resolve the mentioned issue in https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-62095

@saschagrunert
CRI-O: set hard/soft file descriptor ulimits to 1048576
3ed973f 
Signed-off-by: Sascha Grunert <sgrunert@redhat.com>
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added jira/valid-reference Indicates that this PR references a valid Jira ticket of any type. jira/invalid-bug Indicates that a referenced Jira bug is invalid for the branch this PR is targeting. labels Sep 25, 2025
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci-robot commented Sep 25, 2025

@saschagrunert: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-62095, which is invalid:

  • expected the bug to target the "4.20.0" version, but no target version was set
  • release note text must be set and not match the template OR release note type must be set to "Release Note Not Required". For more information you can reference the OpenShift Bug Process.
  • expected Jira Issue OCPBUGS-62095 to depend on a bug targeting a version in 4.21.0 and in one of the following states: MODIFIED, ON_QA, VERIFIED, but no dependents were found

Comment /jira refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Jira bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker.

Details

In response to this:

Change the default ulimits for CRI-O to resolve the mentioned issue in https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-62095

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci-robot commented Sep 25, 2025

@saschagrunert: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-62095, which is invalid:

  • release note text must be set and not match the template OR release note type must be set to "Release Note Not Required". For more information you can reference the OpenShift Bug Process.
  • expected Jira Issue OCPBUGS-62095 to depend on a bug targeting a version in 4.21.0 and in one of the following states: MODIFIED, ON_QA, VERIFIED, but no dependents were found

Comment /jira refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Jira bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

Details

In response to this:

/jira refresh

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot requested review from hasan4791 and mtrmac September 25, 2025 08:13
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Sep 25, 2025
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci-robot commented Sep 25, 2025

@saschagrunert: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-62095, which is invalid:

  • expected the bug to be in one of the following states: NEW, ASSIGNED, POST, but it is MODIFIED instead
  • expected Jira Issue OCPBUGS-62095 to depend on a bug targeting a version in 4.21.0 and in one of the following states: MODIFIED, ON_QA, VERIFIED, but no dependents were found

Comment /jira refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Jira bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

Details

In response to this:

/jira refresh

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

@saschagrunert
Copy link
Member Author

saschagrunert commented Sep 25, 2025

/jira refresh

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci-robot commented Sep 25, 2025

@saschagrunert: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-62095, which is invalid:

  • expected Jira Issue OCPBUGS-62095 to depend on a bug targeting a version in 4.21.0 and in one of the following states: MODIFIED, ON_QA, VERIFIED, but no dependents were found

Comment /jira refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Jira bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

Details

In response to this:

/jira refresh

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

@haircommander
Copy link
Member

haircommander commented Sep 25, 2025

/skip
/lgtm

In 4.21 we can address doing it the upstream way, but let's not create churn like that at this stage in the release

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Sep 25, 2025
@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Sep 25, 2025

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: haircommander, saschagrunert

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Details Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@haircommander
Copy link
Member

haircommander commented Sep 25, 2025

/retest

1 similar comment
@saschagrunert
Copy link
Member Author

saschagrunert commented Sep 26, 2025

/retest

@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Sep 26, 2025 •
edited
Loading

@saschagrunert: The following tests failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name Commit Details Required Rerun command
ci/prow/e2e-aws-mco-disruptive 3ed973f link false /test e2e-aws-mco-disruptive
ci/prow/bootstrap-unit 3ed973f link false /test bootstrap-unit
ci/prow/e2e-agent-compact-ipv4 3ed973f link false /test e2e-agent-compact-ipv4
ci/prow/e2e-aws-ovn-windows 3ed973f link false /test e2e-aws-ovn-windows
ci/prow/e2e-gcp-mco-disruptive 3ed973f link false /test e2e-gcp-mco-disruptive
ci/prow/e2e-gcp-op-ocl 3ed973f link false /test e2e-gcp-op-ocl
ci/prow/e2e-azure-ovn-upgrade-out-of-change 3ed973f link false /test e2e-azure-ovn-upgrade-out-of-change

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

Details

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

@saschagrunert
Copy link
Member Author

saschagrunert commented Sep 26, 2025

/retest

@saschagrunert
Copy link
Member Author

saschagrunert commented Sep 29, 2025 •
edited
Loading

@haircommander any hint how we can make the JIRA plugin happy?

@haircommander
Copy link
Member

haircommander commented Sep 29, 2025

/jira refresh

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci-robot commented Sep 29, 2025

@haircommander: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-62095, which is invalid:

Comment /jira refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Jira bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

Details

In response to this:

/jira refresh

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

@haircommander
Copy link
Member

haircommander commented Sep 29, 2025

/jira refresh

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added jira/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Jira bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. and removed jira/invalid-bug Indicates that a referenced Jira bug is invalid for the branch this PR is targeting. labels Sep 29, 2025
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci-robot commented Sep 29, 2025

@haircommander: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-62095, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state.

7 validation(s) were run on this bug
  • bug is open, matching expected state (open)
  • bug target version (4.20.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.20.0)
  • bug is in the state ASSIGNED, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)
  • release note type set to "Release Note Not Required"
  • dependent bug Jira Issue OCPBUGS-62327 is in the state Verified, which is one of the valid states (MODIFIED, ON_QA, VERIFIED)
  • dependent Jira Issue OCPBUGS-62327 targets the "4.21.0" version, which is one of the valid target versions: 4.21.0
  • bug has dependents

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @lyman9966

Details

In response to this:

/jira refresh

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot requested a review from lyman9966 September 29, 2025 13:43
@sdodson sdodson added the backport-risk-assessed Indicates a PR to a release branch has been evaluated and considered safe to accept. label Oct 7, 2025
@sdodson
Copy link
Member

sdodson commented Oct 7, 2025

/verified later @maschmid

@sdodson
Copy link
Member

sdodson commented Oct 7, 2025

/label staff-eng-approved

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added verified-later verified Signifies that the PR passed pre-merge verification criteria labels Oct 7, 2025
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci-robot commented Oct 7, 2025

@sdodson: This PR has been marked to be verified later by @maschmid.

Details

In response to this:

/verified later @maschmid

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the staff-eng-approved Indicates a release branch PR has been approved by a staff engineer (formerly group/pillar lead). label Oct 7, 2025
@sdodson sdodson merged commit 6fbc376 into openshift:release-4.20 Oct 7, 2025
22 checks passed
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci-robot commented Oct 7, 2025

@saschagrunert: Jira Issue OCPBUGS-62095: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged:

This pull request has the verified-later tag and will need to be manually moved to VERIFIED after testing. Jira Issue OCPBUGS-62095 has been moved to the MODIFIED state.

Details

In response to this:

Change the default ulimits for CRI-O to resolve the mentioned issue in https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-62095

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

@saschagrunert saschagrunert deleted the release-4.20-ulimits branch October 8, 2025 07:38
@openshift-merge-robot
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-merge-robot commented Oct 8, 2025

Fix included in accepted release 4.20.0-0.nightly-2025-10-08-055653

haircommander added a commit to haircommander/machine-config-operator that referenced this pull request Dec 23, 2025
@haircommander
ctrcfg: set increase ulimits when upgrading from 4.20 to 4.21
6ea345c 
in cri-o 1.33, a change cri-o/cri-o#8962 was made to the default limits set
for CRI-O. Now, the ulimit nofile is set much lower, with space to set it higher. however, some workloads
don't expect this change, and fail (see https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-62095)

This was worked around temporarily in openshift#5308,
but that workaround was not intendd to be carried in to 4.21.

Instead, we should drop-in an ignition file on upgrades from 4.20 to 4.21 to make sure existing clusters
don't get this change, but new clusters started in 4.21 do.

This was entirely based on openshift#4715

Signed-off-by: Peter Hunt <pehunt@redhat.com>
haircommander added a commit to haircommander/machine-config-operator that referenced this pull request Dec 23, 2025
@haircommander
ctrcfg: set increase ulimits when upgrading from 4.20 to 4.21
c19a3dd 
in cri-o 1.33, a change cri-o/cri-o#8962 was made to the default limits set
for CRI-O. Now, the ulimit nofile is set much lower, with space to set it higher. however, some workloads
don't expect this change, and fail (see https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-62095)

This was worked around temporarily in openshift#5308,
but that workaround was not intendd to be carried in to 4.21.

Instead, we should drop-in an ignition file on upgrades from 4.20 to 4.21 to make sure existing clusters
don't get this change, but new clusters started in 4.21 do.

This was entirely based on openshift#4715

Signed-off-by: Peter Hunt <pehunt@redhat.com>
@haircommander haircommander mentioned this pull request Dec 23, 2025
Merged
haircommander added a commit to haircommander/machine-config-operator that referenced this pull request Jan 9, 2026
@haircommander
ctrcfg: set increase ulimits when upgrading from 4.20 to 4.21
6d7228b 
in cri-o 1.33, a change cri-o/cri-o#8962 was made to the default limits set
for CRI-O. Now, the ulimit nofile is set much lower, with space to set it higher. however, some workloads
don't expect this change, and fail (see https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-62095)

This was worked around temporarily in openshift#5308,
but that workaround was not intendd to be carried in to 4.21.

Instead, we should drop-in an ignition file on upgrades from 4.20 to 4.21 to make sure existing clusters
don't get this change, but new clusters started in 4.21 do.

This was entirely based on openshift#4715

Signed-off-by: Peter Hunt <pehunt@redhat.com>
haircommander added a commit to haircommander/machine-config-operator that referenced this pull request Jan 14, 2026
@haircommander
ctrcfg: set increase ulimits when upgrading from 4.20 to 4.21
a666b72 
in cri-o 1.33, a change cri-o/cri-o#8962 was made to the default limits set
for CRI-O. Now, the ulimit nofile is set much lower, with space to set it higher. however, some workloads
don't expect this change, and fail (see https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-62095)

This was worked around temporarily in openshift#5308,
but that workaround was not intendd to be carried in to 4.21.

Instead, we should drop-in an ignition file on upgrades from 4.20 to 4.21 to make sure existing clusters
don't get this change, but new clusters started in 4.21 do.

This was entirely based on openshift#4715

Signed-off-by: Peter Hunt <pehunt@redhat.com>
haircommander added a commit to haircommander/machine-config-operator that referenced this pull request Jan 15, 2026
@haircommander
ctrcfg: set increase ulimits when upgrading from 4.20 to 4.21
9c0db36 
in cri-o 1.33, a change cri-o/cri-o#8962 was made to the default limits set
for CRI-O. Now, the ulimit nofile is set much lower, with space to set it higher. however, some workloads
don't expect this change, and fail (see https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-62095)

This was worked around temporarily in openshift#5308,
but that workaround was not intendd to be carried in to 4.21.

Instead, we should drop-in an ignition file on upgrades from 4.20 to 4.21 to make sure existing clusters
don't get this change, but new clusters started in 4.21 do.

This was entirely based on openshift#4715

Signed-off-by: Peter Hunt <pehunt@redhat.com>
haircommander added a commit to haircommander/machine-config-operator that referenced this pull request Jan 15, 2026
@haircommander
ctrcfg: set increase ulimits when upgrading from 4.20 to 4.21
ec6c8e2 
in cri-o 1.33, a change cri-o/cri-o#8962 was made to the default limits set
for CRI-O. Now, the ulimit nofile is set much lower, with space to set it higher. however, some workloads
don't expect this change, and fail (see https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-62095)

This was worked around temporarily in openshift#5308,
but that workaround was not intendd to be carried in to 4.21.

Instead, we should drop-in an ignition file on upgrades from 4.20 to 4.21 to make sure existing clusters
don't get this change, but new clusters started in 4.21 do.

This was entirely based on openshift#4715

Signed-off-by: Peter Hunt <pehunt@redhat.com>
haircommander added a commit to haircommander/machine-config-operator that referenced this pull request Jan 15, 2026
@haircommander
ctrcfg: set increase ulimits when upgrading from 4.20 to 4.21
bcb18a0 
in cri-o 1.33, a change cri-o/cri-o#8962 was made to the default limits set
for CRI-O. Now, the ulimit nofile is set much lower, with space to set it higher. however, some workloads
don't expect this change, and fail (see https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-62095)

This was worked around temporarily in openshift#5308,
but that workaround was not intendd to be carried in to 4.21.

Instead, we should drop-in an ignition file on upgrades from 4.20 to 4.21 to make sure existing clusters
don't get this change, but new clusters started in 4.21 do.

This was entirely based on openshift#4715

Signed-off-by: Peter Hunt <pehunt@redhat.com>
@haircommander haircommander mentioned this pull request Jan 16, 2026
Open
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@hasan4791 hasan4791 Awaiting requested review from hasan4791

@mtrmac mtrmac Awaiting requested review from mtrmac

@lyman9966 lyman9966 Awaiting requested review from lyman9966

Assignees

@rbbratta rbbratta

@eurijon eurijon

@haircommander haircommander

@lyman9966 lyman9966

@anuragthehatter anuragthehatter

@sergiordlr sergiordlr

@imatza-rh imatza-rh

@rioliu-rh rioliu-rh

@mhanss mhanss

@ptalgulk01 ptalgulk01

Labels

approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. backport-risk-assessed Indicates a PR to a release branch has been evaluated and considered safe to accept. jira/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Jira bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. jira/valid-reference Indicates that this PR references a valid Jira ticket of any type. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. staff-eng-approved Indicates a release branch PR has been approved by a staff engineer (formerly group/pillar lead). verified Signifies that the PR passed pre-merge verification criteria verified-later

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.