update container-log-max-files-max-size

[elieser1101]

As requested in #3772

[k8s-ci-robot]

Welcome @elieser1101!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes-sigs/kind 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes-sigs/kind has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @elieser1101. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

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.

[dims]

/ok-to-test

[stmcginnis]

/lgtm

[elieser1101]

/test pull-kind-verify

[aojea]

@BenTheElder now it keeps the whole run in two files

https://gcsweb.k8s.io/gcs/kubernetes-ci-logs/pr-logs/pull/kubernetes-sigs_kind/3774/pull-kind-e2e-kubernetes/1853039395674787840/artifacts/kind-control-plane/pods/kube-system_kube-apiserver-kind-control-plane_f15c9aff8d8905a46ac69983e98c39c7/kube-apiserver/

This is important to be able to debug problems on CI runs, specially rare flakes that does not happen frequently, is the second time this week it happens to me I can not debug because there are no logs when the problem happened

/lgtm
/approve

/hold

Wait for Ben

/assign @BenTheElder

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: aojea, elieser1101

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

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [aojea]

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

[BenTheElder]

I'm concerned whenever we have to do CI-only configuration @aojea, because it means we're no longer actually testing the defaults, do we think this is because of the verbosity on the components?

[aojea]

compared with an e2e gce log the sizes are similar https://gcsweb.k8s.io/gcs/kubernetes-ci-logs/pr-logs/pull/128474/pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce/1852746024750157824/artifacts/e2e-44626956c7-674b9-master/

the difference is that those components logs to the filesystem, with the gorunner thingy, in kind everything logs to the pods and is rotated by the kubelet IIRC

[BenTheElder]

the difference is that those components logs to the filesystem, with the gorunner thingy, in kind everything logs to the pods and is rotated by the kubelet IIRC

This seems like a gap to revisit later, ideally we want to make sure component logs have robust retention, but maybe not random pods.

[BenTheElder]

Also, we could just change the defaults in kind, kubeadm, or kubelet. Again, I think we should avoid tuning the cluster "for CI", but in the fullness of capturing logs for debugging now

/hold cancel