Bug 1386594

Hi Humble,

I am sharing my understanding of the doc requirement. Please do share your suggestions regarding the same. In order to address Use Case #6 mentioned in the description:

1) Firstly, create two sub-section under Chapter 5 "Creating Persistent Volumes". This clearly bifurcates static and dynamic provisioning.
     5.1 - Static Provisioning of Volumes
     5.2 - Dynamic Provisioning of Volumes

This is addressed in the following google doc where we are documenting "Dynamic provisioning"

https://docs.google.com/document/d/16VFLcm2DUtEg__3-FbikKI0lmlkyf9e1BkxmUKz--zM/edit#

2) Add a note under "Static Provisioning of Volumes", saying that Dynamic provisioning of volumes is supported from CNS 3.4 and provide a link to "Dynamic Provisioning of Volumes"

 Similarly, for users who upgraded OpenShift Container Platform 3.3 to OpenShift Container Platform 3.4 and have static volumes, add a note under under "Dynamic Provisioning of Volumes" and provide link to "Static Provisioning of Volumes".

Let me know if this addresses the issue and please share your thoughts and comments.

Thanks.

> 
> I am sharing my understanding of the doc requirement. Please do share your
> suggestions regarding the same. In order to address Use Case #6 mentioned in
> the description:

I am unable to see Use Case #6 in the document.

> 
> 1) Firstly, create two sub-section under Chapter 5 "Creating Persistent
> Volumes". This clearly bifurcates static and dynamic provisioning.
>      5.1 - Static Provisioning of Volumes
>      5.2 - Dynamic Provisioning of Volumes
> 
> This is addressed in the following google doc where we are documenting
> "Dynamic provisioning"
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/16VFLcm2DUtEg__3-FbikKI0lmlkyf9e1BkxmUKz--
> zM/edit#
> 
> 2) Add a note under "Static Provisioning of Volumes", saying that Dynamic
> provisioning of volumes is supported from CNS 3.4 and provide a link to
> "Dynamic Provisioning of Volumes"
> 
>  Similarly, for users who upgraded OpenShift Container Platform 3.3 to
> OpenShift Container Platform 3.4 and have static volumes, add a note under
> under "Dynamic Provisioning of Volumes" and provide link to "Static
> Provisioning of Volumes".
> 
> Let me know if this addresses the issue and please share your thoughts and
> comments.
> 

Its good to seperate the methods ( static and dynamic) and give pointers/reference from one to the other. Also I would encourage to make the 'common' part ( For ex: deployment) separate and refer it from 'static/dynamic' sections whenever needed. But others may have a different view. So, my suggestion would be to send a mail which describe the layout of the doc to rhs-containers requesting CNS team's and stakeholders feedback. so that we wont struggle at last minute to rearrange the things.

Thanks Humble.

Chapter 4 (which comes before "creating persistent volumes") has all the details regarding setting up heketi server and a section for deploying containers. This could be used as a common part for both static and dynamic as suggested.

https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en/red-hat-gluster-storage/3.1/paged/container-native-storage-for-openshift-container-platform/chapter-4-setting-up-the-environment

I shall however share the doc with the container team to get everyone's view on the same.

(In reply to Bhavana from comment #6)
> Thanks Humble.
> 
> Chapter 4 (which comes before "creating persistent volumes") has all the
> details regarding setting up heketi server and a section for deploying
> containers. This could be used as a common part for both static and dynamic
> as suggested.
> 
> https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en/red-hat-gluster-storage/3.1/paged/
> container-native-storage-for-openshift-container-platform/chapter-4-setting-
> up-the-environment
> 
> I shall however share the doc with the container team to get everyone's view
> on the same.

ACK from me. However it would be really good if you can consolidate https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1386676 and Troubleshooting Guide doc in a single one and send for the review.

The details are now added to the following link. Some of the changes are yet to reflect to this site.

http://ccs-jenkins.gsslab.brq.redhat.com:8080/job/doc-Red_Hat_Gluster_Storage-3.4-Container_Native_Storage_with_OpenShift_Platform-branch-dynamic_provisioning_volume_security/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/tmp/en-US/html-single/index.html#chap-Documentation-Red_Hat_Gluster_Storage_Container_Native_with_OpenShift_Platform-OpenShift_Creating_Persistent_Volumes

Minor tasks pending.

http://ccs-jenkins.gsslab.brq.redhat.com:8080/job/doc-Red_Hat_Gluster_Storage-3.4-Container_Native_Storage_with_OpenShift_Platform-branch-dynamic_provisioning_volume_security/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/tmp/en-US/html-single/index.html#idm140175946598960

Moving the bug on_qa

I see that https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1386546 also tracks dynamic provisioning, I wonder if 1386546 is needed. 

In any case, I'm adding the comments I had for 1386546 here as well,

1) section 5.2.1,

After creating a Storage Class, a secret for heketi authentication must be creating before proceeding with the creation of persistent volume claim. 

should be,

After creating a Storage Class, a secret for heketi authentication must be created before proceeding with the creation of persistent volume claim. 

2) 

secretNamespace + secretName: Identification of Secret instance that containes

should be,

secretNamespace + secretName: Identification of Secret instance that contains

3) Under,  ⁠5.2.1.2. Creating Secret for Heketi Authentication

Create a secret file by executing the following command: 

should be,

Create a secret file, sample secret file is provided below

4) Similar to the above comment,

"Create a Persistent Volume Claim file by executing the following command: " has to be changed

5)  To verify that the persistent volume is mounted inside the container, execute the following command: 
# oc rsh busybox

The command provided only logs into the shell of the application pod. To check if the mountpoint exists, 'df' command has to be executed in the shell

As added in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1386546#c13, these comments are addressed in that bug too. Hence moving this to on_qa

More comments:

1) In order to stay consistent with the sample file present in /usr/share/heketi/templates/ - can we change the sample-gluster-endpoints.yaml as shown below instead of the one currently available in the doc.

cat /usr/share/heketi/templates/sample-gluster-endpoints.yaml 
apiVersion: v1
kind: Endpoints
metadata:
  name: glusterfs-cluster
subsets:
- addresses:
  - ip: 192.168.10.100
  ports:
  - port: 1
- addresses:
  - ip: 192.168.10.101
  ports:
  - port: 1
- addresses:
  - ip: 192.168.10.102
  ports:
  - port: 1

I think this is being taken care as part of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1408796#c3, but please ensure the changes are made.

2) The output of step 6 should be,

cat pv001.json 
{
  "kind": "PersistentVolume",
  "apiVersion": "v1",
  "metadata": {
    "name": "glusterfs-f8c612ee",
    "creationTimestamp": null
  },
  "spec": {
    "capacity": {
      "storage": "100Gi"
    },
    "glusterfs": {
      "endpoints": "TYPE ENDPOINT HERE",
      "path": "vol_f8c612eea57556197511f6b8c54b6070"
    },
    "accessModes": [
      "ReadWriteMany"
    ],
    "persistentVolumeReclaimPolicy": "Retain"
  },
  "status": {}

step 7's output should be,

cat pv001.json
{
  "kind": "PersistentVolume",
  "apiVersion": "v1",
  "metadata": {
    "name": "glusterfs-f8c612ee",
    "creationTimestamp": null,
    "labels": {
      "storage-tier": "gold"
    }
  },
  "spec": {
    "capacity": {
      "storage": "12Gi"
    },
    "glusterfs": {
      "endpoints": "glusterfs-cluster",
      "path": "vol_f8c612eea57556197511f6b8c54b6070"
    },
    "accessModes": [
      "ReadWriteMany"
    ],
    "persistentVolumeReclaimPolicy": "Retain"
  },
  "status": {}
}

and Introduce a step between 7 and 8 in the current doc. The step would be,

'create a persistent volume'

# oc create -f pv001.json

For example:

# oc create -f pv001.json
persistentvolume "glusterfs-4fc22ff9" created


3) The size mentioned in step 9 is 1Gi, can you please change it to 100Gi to stay consistent with the previous commands. i.e., the file should be as shown below.

 Create a persistent volume claim file. For example:

# cat pvc.json 
      
{
   "apiVersion": "v1",
   "kind": "PersistentVolumeClaim",
   "metadata": {
     "name":  "glusterfs-claim"
  },
   "spec": {
     "accessModes": [
       "ReadWriteMany"
    ],
     "resources": {
       "requests": {
         "storage": "100Gi"
      },
       "selector": {
       "matchLabels": {
         "storage-tier": "gold"
      }
    }
   }
  }
}

Hi,

I have brought in the difference between creating a PV and editing the pv json file.

The outputs are changed to show this difference clearly too.

http://ccs-jenkins.gsslab.brq.redhat.com:8080/job/doc-Red_Hat_Gluster_Storage-3.4-Container_Native_Storage_with_OpenShift_Platform-branch-master/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/tmp/en-US/html-single/index.html#chap-Documentation-Red_Hat_Gluster_Storage_Container_Native_with_OpenShift_Platform-OpenShift_Creating_Persistent_Volumes-Static_Prov

Looks good to me, moving the bug to verified.