Bug 1874243
| Summary: | [RFE] Noobaa resources are impacted with a downtime during admin operations, such as upgrade, due to no HA for noobaa-core and noobaa-db | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Red Hat Storage] Red Hat OpenShift Data Foundation | Reporter: | Neha Berry <nberry> |
| Component: | Multi-Cloud Object Gateway | Assignee: | Nobody <nobody> |
| Status: | CLOSED DEFERRED | QA Contact: | Elad <ebenahar> |
| Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | 4.5 | CC: | bkunal, ebenahar, fbalak, muagarwa, nbecker, ocs-bugs, odf-bz-bot, owasserm, ycui |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | AutomationBackLog, FutureFeature, Reopened |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | No Doc Update | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2023-04-17 17:18:20 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
Neha Berry
2020-08-31 19:16:22 UTC
Maybe my understanding is wrong, but if we are adding the request in the Backlog, why can't we keep the Bug open as an RFE and target it for a future release where we may plan to take it up, e.g. 4.7. We can always re-target if it gets delayed. I understand the current behavior is by design but we are requesting for a design change as we end up in issues because of no HA. That's why we raised it as an RFE. Closing the BZ as NOTABUG doesn't in a glance confirm that it is being tracked in backlog and also may result in loss of track from our side as we do not refer to backlog regularly to monitor the plan. Even if we have to close an RFE, why not use DEFERRED ? Correct me If my understanding about Backlog is wrong. Mayube not a bug was the wrong close here, but we don't want to manage RFEs in BZs HA is much needed. I agree that we should track RFEs in a single place so having it in Jira only is ok. However, NOTABUG is not the correct reason. Also, I believe this BZ should not be marked as an RFE bug as a regular high severity bug, and should capture the fact that there is a downtime while performing admin operations After performing a set of OCP, OCS upgrades and node drain,node shutdown, etc. it is seen that Noobaa resources and IO is severely impacted as noobaa-core might get drained multiple times, each time resulting in downtime for the backingstores. At times, the downtime exceeds 5-10 mins. IMO, we should consider it a must-fix. IMO, hopefully I am not wrong, even the provisioner pods used to be statefulset in the earlier days but due to the downtime, they were converted to deployments with replica 2. I would request to consider this for a fix in next release. Hence, based on Comment#7 and Comment#0, re-opening the bug to start a discussion. Thanks in advance. We discussed in the triage meeting. HA and non disruptive upgrade are not the same, and the ask here is for the latter I'ts not due to HA since it can be achieved without HA. I would change the title RFE, won't be in time for 4.6, probably want to push to 4.7 *** Bug 1913771 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** also related to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1889616 As a feature it should be planned as part of the version |