Bug 1928197

Summary: [ROKS/Azure] ssd drives wrongly recognized as hdd in ceph osd tree
Product: OpenShift Container Platform Reporter: Martin Bukatovic <mbukatov>
Component: Console Storage PluginAssignee: Pranshu Srivastava <prasriva>
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX QA Contact: Raz Tamir <ratamir>
Severity: low Docs Contact:
Priority: low    
Version: 4.7CC: afrahman, aos-bugs, cpratt, ebenahar, ekuric, jarrpa, madam, mbukatov, muagarwa, nberry, nthomas, ocs-bugs, owasserm, pkundra, sabose, shan, shberry, sostapov
Target Milestone: ---Keywords: AutomationBackLog, Performance
Target Release: 4.8.0   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: 1873161 Environment:
Last Closed: 2021-06-09 05:19:08 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On: 1873161    
Bug Blocks: 1848907    

Comment 1 Martin Bukatovic 2021-02-12 15:58:13 UTC 
Asking Mudit to explain what changes are needed in OCS plugin of OCP Console, so that this bug could be addressed.
Comment 4 Mudit Agarwal 2021-02-16 15:45:44 UTC 
Ack
Comment 7 Mudit Agarwal 2021-06-08 12:03:05 UTC 
Martin, should we really do this?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873161#c35
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873161#c36

If I remember correctly from my last sync up with Nishanth/Ankush, we also don't have a good solution in UI because whatever solution we do for this it would be very OCS specific.
Comment 8 Martin Bukatovic 2021-06-08 17:48:59 UTC 
(In reply to Mudit Agarwal from comment #7)
> Martin, should we really do this?
>
> If I remember correctly from my last sync up with Nishanth/Ankush, we also
> don't have a good solution in UI because whatever solution we do for this it
> would be very OCS specific.

I won't oppose your decision to not implement this workaround, since both you, who originally proposed it, and Nishanth are opposing it, and the main reason for this to be implemented was not closed as wontfix BZ 1873161.

This means that the only "fix"/workaround for this usecase we ended up implementing is BZ 1903973.