Bug 1417278

Summary:	[DOCS] OpenShift on GCE requires node name is set to Google instance name
Product:	OpenShift Container Platform	Reporter:	Steven Walter <stwalter>
Component:	Documentation	Assignee:	Gaurav Nelson <gnelson>
Status:	CLOSED NOTABUG	QA Contact:	Jianwei Hou <jhou>
Severity:	low	Docs Contact:	Vikram Goyal <vigoyal>
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	3.4.0	CC:	aos-bugs, jokerman, mmccomas, stwalter
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:	2018-06-04 23:43:24 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 Steven Walter 2017-01-27 19:03:50 UTC

Document URL: 
https://docs.openshift.com/container-platform/3.4/install_config/configuring_gce.html#install-config-configuring-gce


Describe the issue: 

As per: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318230#c18 -- GCE persistent storage will not mount if the node's internal name (i.e. the openshift_hostname variable in the ansible installer) is not equal to the GCE instance name ( the name of the VM from the perspective of GCE ). If a cluster is installed using a fully-qualified domain name as the internal hostname (which can happen by setting the variable as such or sometimes incidentally if the variable is not set), then disks will not mount -- and changing the node name post-installation is not extremely simple.

Suggestions for improvement: 
Either in this doc or in the Advanced Install doc, it needs to be made clear that this variable must be set properly.

Additional information:

Comment 3 Gaurav Nelson 2018-05-30 01:15:49 UTC

I belive this was resolved by https://github.com/openshift/openshift-docs/pull/4044

the current docs include this:
> the nodeName must match the instance name in GCE in order for the cloud provider integration to work properly. The name must also be RFC1123 compliant.

Which I guess is the intent here. 

@stwalter can you please confirm?

Comment 4 Steven Walter 2018-06-04 14:42:38 UTC

Agreed, that should cover it

Comment 5 Gaurav Nelson 2018-06-04 23:43:24 UTC

Thanks Steven, I am closing this now.