Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 48106, 46761)
removing unnecessary shallow copy on SyncService
**What this PR does / why we need it**: remove shallow copy + avoid using same index name as the nested loop
**Which issue this PR fixes**: fixes#46703
**Special notes for your reviewer**:
**Release note**:
```release-note
```
This substantially reduces the number of API calls made by the endpoint
controller. Currently the controller makes an API call per endpoint for
each service that is synced. When the 30s resync is triggered, this
results in an API call for every single endpoint in the cluster. This
quickly exceeds the default qps/burst limit of 20/30 even in small
clusters, leading to delays in endpoint updates.
This change modifies the controller to use the endpoint informer cache
for all endpoint GETs. This means we only make API calls for changes in
endpoints. As a result, qps only depends on the pod activity in the
cluster, rather than the number of services.
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Get rid of 30s ResyncPeriod in endpoint controller
Ref: #47597
This should fix one of the demons of endpoint controller.
/cc @smarterclayton @gmarek
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 39807, 37505, 39844, 39525, 39109)
Made cache.Controller to be interface.
**What this PR does / why we need it**:
#37504
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 39284, 39367)
Remove HostRecord annotation (beta feature)
The annotation has made it to GA so this code should be deleted.
**Release note**:
```release-note
The 'endpoints.beta.kubernetes.io/hostnames-map' annotation is no longer supported. Users can use the 'Endpoints.subsets[].addresses[].hostname' field instead.
```
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Curating Owners: pkg/controller
cc @jsafrane @mikedanese @bprashanth @derekwaynecarr @thockin @saad-ali
In an effort to expand the existing pool of reviewers and establish a
two-tiered review process (first someone **lgtms** and then someone
experienced in the project **approves**), we are adding new reviewers to
existing owners files.
## If You Care About the Process:
We did this by algorithmically figuring out who’s contributed code to
the project and in what directories. Unfortunately, that doesn’t work
perfectly: people that have made mechanical code changes (e.g change the
copyright header across all directories) end up as reviewers in lots of
places.
Instead of using pure commit data, we generated an excessively large
list of reviewers and pruned based on all time commit data, recent
commit data and review data (number of PRs commented on).
At this point we have a decent list of reviewers, but it needs one last
pass for fine tuning.
## TLDR:
As an owner of a sig/directory and a leader of the project, here’s what
we need from you:
1. Use PR https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/35715 as an example.
2. The pull-request is made editable, please edit the OWNERS file to add
the names of people that should be reviewing code in the future in the **reviewers** section. You probably do NOT need to modify the **approvers** section.
3. Notify me if you want some OWNERS file to be removed. Being an approver or reviewer
of a parent directory makes you a reviewer/approver of the subdirectories too, so not all
OWNERS files may be necessary.
4. Please use ALIAS if you want to use the same list of people over and
over again (don't hesitate to ask me for help, or use the pull-request
above as an example)
Jacob Simpson