ci: Remove legacy code related to one proxy per host

[sboeuf]

This commit removes legacy code when Clear Containers was relying on
one proxy per host. Now that we rely on one proxy per VM, there is no
point in keeping this.

Fixes#827

Signed-off-by: Sebastien Boeuf sebastien.boeuf@intel.com

[clearcontainersbot]

kubernetes qa-passed 👍

[jodh-intel]

This looks fine. However, we potentially want to apply these settings to the ksm-throttler now.

but note: clearcontainers/packaging#225.

Also, the throttler doesn't seem to have the KSM throttler option that the proxy has?

Another approach for QA/PnP might be to simply uninstall the throttler (once the packaging bug above is resolved). What do you think @chavafg, @grahamwhaley ?

[devimc]

lgtm

[grahamwhaley]

I've not stared at the throttler - is it some sort of systemd service that we could just (even temporarily) disable with a systemctl whilst we run the metrics - if so, that would work even better than before I think...

[jodh-intel]

@grahamwhaley - yes, that's another option of course. Note that currently it needs to be manually installed and manually enabled due to the packaging issue. Hence, perfect currently for QA/PnP, but soon not to be ;)

[sboeuf]

@GWhaley@jodh-intel I don't think this change impacts the metrics because this code is not used anymore since we have switched to one proxy per VM, right ?
Also, notice that I have removed this code since I wanted to make sure we don't introduce some potential issues by having one proxy running but not used along with other proxies (started by the runtime for every VM.)

[jodh-intel]

What I meant is that ideally we'd have a PR that switched these changes from cc-proxy to ksm-cc-throttler. However, we're essentially blocked on the ability to do that due to the packaging bug.

I guess we can land this now, but we need to ensure we don't forget to apply these changes to the throttler once the packaging bug is resolved.

lgtm

[sboeuf]

@jodh-intel oh yes I get it. What do you think about commenting out this code then ?

[jodh-intel]

I guess we could do that with a comment explaining why. But as long as we've got an issue to remind us to apply these changes in reverse to the throttler that'd wfm.

[sboeuf]

Ok I'll open this issue

[sboeuf]

@jodh-intel here is the issue: #829

[sboeuf]

@chavafg if you're okay with this patch, feel free to force merge it since F26 failure is due to Openshift.

[chavafg]

lgtm