Bug 1372430

Summary:	[RFE] Match strorage-class labels with pv-selectors
Product:	OpenShift Container Platform	Reporter:	Brennan Vincello <bvincell>
Component:	RFE	Assignee:	Paul Morie <pmorie>
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA	QA Contact:	Johnny Liu <jialiu>
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	3.4.0	CC:	aos-bugs, bvincell, eparis, erich, jokerman, mmccomas, tdawson
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2017-01-18 12:53:13 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:

Description Brennan Vincello 2016-09-01 17:00:15 UTC

Ticket created to track: https://trello.com/c/LMc4eVgW/105-5-storage-classes-match-labels-with-the-selectors-ops-rfe-qos

Mirrored: As a user I want the storage-class labels to match on the pv-selector so I can explicitly ask for a storage with certain properties (speed, ...), assuming that the system admin labeled the Persistent Volumes appropriately.

Comment 1 Eric Paris 2016-09-01 18:21:34 UTC

I do not understand this BZ. The card in question is done, complete, and closed.

The phrase 'storage-class labels' does not make sense to me. Well, the StorageClass object does have labels, but they are not relevant to any form of PVC->PV binding.

For a PVC to bind to a PV the size, access mode, StorageClass, and LabelSelector between the PVC and PV must ALL be satisfied.

Is this BZ just intended to be a placeholder until the LabelSelector is in OCP (3.3?) or when StorageClasses are in OCP (3.4?)

Comment 3 errata-xmlrpc 2017-01-18 12:53:13 UTC

Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2017:0066

Comment 4 Red Hat Bugzilla 2023-09-14 03:30:29 UTC

The needinfo request[s] on this closed bug have been removed as they have been unresolved for 1000 days