Bug 1047656

Summary:	openstack-foreman: The cinder lvm driver isn't configured
Product:	Red Hat OpenStack	Reporter:	Yogev Rabl <yrabl>
Component:	rubygem-staypuft	Assignee:	RHOS Maint <rhos-maint>
Status:	CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE	QA Contact:	Omri Hochman <ohochman>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	4.0	CC:	acathrow, dron, mburns, morazi, rhos-maint, yeylon, yrabl
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	5.0 (RHEL 7)
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:	storage
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2014-08-05 19:51:58 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	1064889

Description Yogev Rabl 2014-01-01 15:58:29 UTC

Description of problem:
The parameter of the cinder driver
volume_driver=cinder.volume.drivers.lvm.LVMISCSIDriver
isn't configured in /etc/cinder/cinder.conf file. 

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
foreman-proxy-1.3.0-3.el6sat.noarch

Comment 2 Perry Myers 2014-03-08 19:52:20 UTC

@yrabl: What is the impact of this bug?  Does it mean that via Foreman, Cinder can never work with LVM as the backend?

Also, a bit confused.  You have set the priority/severity to medium, but this is listed as a blocker.  Those two settings I think are in conflict.  If this bug implies that Foreman can never use Cinder with LVM, I would consider this bug to be High Priority vs. Medium.  Please clarify.  If this is indeed as I describe above, we can move this from RHOS 5.0 target to 4.0.z.

Comment 3 Yogev Rabl 2014-03-09 08:16:15 UTC

(In reply to Perry Myers from comment #2)
The problem is that the Foreman doesn't configure the LVM driver automatically, and the user needs to configure the bug manually. Unlike Packstack, after the Foreman installation the user still needs to configure the Cinder's back end post installation.

The priority is set for medium because it has a workaround (and there's plenty of documentation about it).

Comment 4 Perry Myers 2014-03-09 14:33:06 UTC

Ok, thanks for the clarification here.  I agree that the bug is medium priority then, and that targeting RHOS 5.0 makes sense.  I will remove the blocker flag though.

Comment 5 Mike Burns 2014-05-22 19:53:55 UTC

Is this something that we want staypuft/OFI to be doing on behalf of the user long term?  Or should we leave that to the user to configure themselves?

Comment 6 Andrew Cathrow 2014-05-22 21:21:48 UTC

(In reply to Mike Burns from comment #5)
> Is this something that we want staypuft/OFI to be doing on behalf of the
> user long term?  Or should we leave that to the user to configure themselves?

I see this as something we'll do with plugins/conf driven UI feature that Arthur is discussing

Comment 7 Mike Burns 2014-08-05 19:51:58 UTC

This bug was handled or obsoleted during the GA2 redesign work.  If you believe that this still applies to the current UI, please re-open this bug.