Skip to content

Conversation

@scoquelin
Copy link
Contributor

@scoquelin scoquelin commented Oct 14, 2024

Tested with kustomize build .

OUTPUT :

...
apiVersion: apps/v1
kind: StatefulSet
metadata:
  labels:
    control-plane: controller-manager
    controller-tools.k8s.io: "1.0"
  name: nidhogg-controller-manager
  namespace: nidhogg-system
spec:
  replicas: 2
  selector:
    matchLabels:
      control-plane: controller-manager
      controller-tools.k8s.io: "1.0"
  serviceName: nidhogg-controller-manager-service
  template:
    metadata:
      labels:
        control-plane: controller-manager
        controller-tools.k8s.io: "1.0"
    spec:
      containers:
      - args:
        - --config-file=/config/config.json
        - --leader-election
        - --leader-namespace=nidhogg-system
        - --leader-configmap=nidhogg-election
        - --metrics-addr=8081
        command:
        - /manager
        env:
        - name: POD_NAMESPACE
          valueFrom:
            fieldRef:
              fieldPath: metadata.namespace
        - name: SECRET_NAME
          value: nidhogg-webhook-server-secret
        image: ghcr.io/pelotech/nidhogg:v0.5.1
        imagePullPolicy: Always
        name: manager
        ports:
        - containerPort: 9876
          name: webhook-server
          protocol: TCP
        - containerPort: 8081
          name: metrics
          protocol: TCP
...

Closes #98

@scoquelin scoquelin changed the title feat: relocating metrics port for nidhogg manager to avoid potential conflicts feat: relocating metrics port for nidhogg manager to avoid conflicts Oct 14, 2024
@scoquelin scoquelin force-pushed the relocate-nidhogg-manager-port branch from e431768 to a3446d5 Compare October 14, 2024 18:33
@scoquelin scoquelin requested a review from chomatdam October 14, 2024 18:34
@scoquelin scoquelin force-pushed the relocate-nidhogg-manager-port branch from a3446d5 to 57d3174 Compare October 14, 2024 18:40
@scoquelin scoquelin force-pushed the relocate-nidhogg-manager-port branch from 57d3174 to 0a8668b Compare October 14, 2024 18:43
@chomatdam
Copy link
Contributor

chomatdam commented Oct 15, 2024

Two questions:

  • do we want to bump nidhogg to latest (0.5.3)?
  • do we want to use our container image value here instead of applying it through a Kustomize image tag override here?

@chomatdam chomatdam linked an issue Oct 15, 2024 that may be closed by this pull request
@scoquelin
Copy link
Contributor Author

scoquelin commented Oct 15, 2024

Two questions:

  • do we want to bump nidhogg to latest (0.5.3)?

Yes I think we should, I just wanted a way to test it, let's discuss how we can do this

  • do we want to use our container image value here instead of applying it through a Kustomize image tag override here?

Yes we should definitely use the "real" container image here. I will start by doing a cleanup PR in that area on the nidhogg side of things.

@chomatdam
Copy link
Contributor

Owning Nidhogg, I would probably fix it in the Nidhogg repo itself

@josmo
Copy link
Member

josmo commented May 29, 2025

So this never got merged however I just opened #215 since I don't think nidhogg needs to be on the hostnetwork in the frist place. If we merge removing hostnetwork, we should be able to just close this out :)

@josmo josmo closed this May 29, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Resolve port conflict between Nidhogg metrics and kube-ovn-pinger

4 participants