Bug 1991013

Summary:	Wrong CSI provisioner pods placement documentation
Product:	[Red Hat Storage] Red Hat OpenShift Data Foundation	Reporter:	Pietro Bertera <pbertera>
Component:	documentation	Assignee:	Anjana Suparna Sriram <asriram>
Status:	CLOSED DUPLICATE	QA Contact:	Raz Tamir <ratamir>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	4.7	CC:	asriram, hnallurv, nberry, ocs-bugs, odf-bz-bot
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:	2021-08-09 07:16:01 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 Pietro Bertera 2021-08-06 19:36:17 UTC

Describe the issue: In OCS/ODF doc[1],[2] we mention that csi-provisioner pods should be scheduled on storage nodes

Table 2.1. Pods corresponding to OpenShift Container storage cluster, Section CSI:

~~~
* csi-cephfsplugin-provisioner-* (2 pods distributed across storage nodes)

[...]

* csi-rbdplugin-provisioner-* (2 pods distributed across storage nodes)
~~~

This is not accurate: the CSI provisioner pods can be placed on any worker node (storage or "pure" worker): the Deployment do not define any nodeSelector.

[1] https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_openshift_container_storage/4.7/html/deploying_and_managing_openshift_container_storage_using_red_hat_openstack_platform/deploying-openshift-container-storage-on-red-hat-openstack-platform_internal-osp#verifying-the-state-of-the-pods_internal-osp
[2] https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_openshift_container_storage/4.8/html/deploying_and_managing_openshift_container_storage_using_red_hat_openstack_platform/deploying-openshift-container-storage-on-red-hat-openstack-platform_internal-osp#verifying-the-state-of-the-pods_internal-osp

Comment 5 Pietro Bertera 2021-08-09 07:16:01 UTC


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1960066 ***