| Summary: | StorageClass deletion should fail if claims are associated with it | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat Gluster Storage | Reporter: | Prasanth <pprakash> |
| Component: | CNS-deployment | Assignee: | Humble Chirammal <hchiramm> |
| Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | Anoop <annair> |
| Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | cns-3.4 | CC: | akhakhar, annair, hchiramm, jrivera, lpabon, madam, mzywusko, nerawat, pprakash, rmekala, rreddy, rtalur |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Reopened |
| 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: | 2018-04-25 13:47:46 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: | |
|
Description
Prasanth
2016-11-07 13:12:37 UTC
The working mechanism of Storage class is common for all the provisioners. This is not something we can do it from plugin (ex: GlusterFS) side. This has to be taken care in the PV controller in kubernetes. I would like to call this as NOT A BUG. Please feel free to reopen if you think otherwise. (In reply to Humble Chirammal from comment #2) > The working mechanism of Storage class is common for all the provisioners. > This is not something we can do it from plugin (ex: GlusterFS) side. This > has to be taken care in the PV controller in kubernetes. I would like to > call this as NOT A BUG. Please feel free to reopen if you think otherwise. I still feel that this should be fixed w.r.t CNS. If it's not possible for this release, we can keep this BZ open and track it for the next release. (In reply to Prasanth from comment #3) > (In reply to Humble Chirammal from comment #2) > > The working mechanism of Storage class is common for all the provisioners. > > This is not something we can do it from plugin (ex: GlusterFS) side. This > > has to be taken care in the PV controller in kubernetes. I would like to > > call this as NOT A BUG. Please feel free to reopen if you think otherwise. > > I still feel that this should be fixed w.r.t CNS. If it's not possible for > this release, we can keep this BZ open and track it for the next release. Just to clarify, the storage class is designed this way and the plugin ( ex: Glusterfs/Ceph..etc) does not have any control to change it. I really doubt the upstream will accept this design request at all. Any way, what I can do here is, to trigger a discussion in upstream and get the feedback. However please note that, we/CNS does not have any control on this. To summarize, at present, this is working as expected or as per design. Also I dont know, whether we need to track it in CNS. todo: trigger kubernetes upstream discussion. at earliers for 3.5. Upstream Issue # https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/40728 |