Description of problem: There is all-or-nothing Volume access currently with the Volume options. It would be useful to have functionality for the following: /quotatestvol/q1 someIP /quotatestvol/q2 anotherIP /quotatestvol/q3 bothIPs Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 2.1 How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Try to setup ip range access control for volume subdirectories Actual results: No way to do so Expected results: Supported behavior
Hello, I was notified that this request above may not be clear. This is for the native client only, not for NFS. Thanks, Wesley
After discussion with PM, this can be marked as CLOSED WONTFIX as the use case that generated this request has been lessened in urgency.
Whoops - I meant to close 1029198. Re-opening this one for evaluation. Thanks, Wesley
Any action on this RFE? Last update was 18 months ago. Customer still interested in it.
This BZ is still set to NEW, is HIGH SEV, and has been open for over 2 years. Can we at least guess when and if it will be added to our road-map?
Can I get an update on this BZ for my customer?
@pranith : Can I get an update on the status of this BZ? I see it was tentatively scheduled for upstream 3.8. Do we know if it made it and will be included in RHGS 3.2? Cal
Hello, I'd like to get an update on the current status of this BZ and also our future plans for it. Given that there is no significant progress on this BZ for last 3.5 years, customer is concerned and has raised management escalation. Below I am pasting a snippet from customer's update where they have mentioned about justification/impact on business: --------- I think we have a strong business use case. Providing persistent storage for OpenShift platform in production scale - high number of projects/apps. This is currently possible only with scaling with number of nodes, but this is not acceptable due to price. --------- The BZ is still in "NEW" state. Let me know if this BZ needs any data/information from customer to proceed further? Regards, Swagato Paul Escalation Manager, CEE
@pranith: Dave Carmichael is trying to set up a call to discuss expectations with IT. Do you have someone that you want to be in the call?
*** Bug 1286783 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
@Vijay, Please review previous comment by Neeraj and let us know if any alternative approach (other than the sub-directory export) may help here?
Hi Do we have some update for this bug?
Hello, Any updates regarding this bug. Regards, Neeraj Bhatt
upstream patch : https://review.gluster.org/17141
downstream patches : https://code.engineering.redhat.com/gerrit/#/c/119138/ https://code.engineering.redhat.com/gerrit/#/c/119139/
Verified this BZ with gluster builds 3.8.4-48 , 3.8.4-49, 3.8.4-50. Basic sanity validation across the feature is covered. Execution of remaining cases will continue ongoing in 3.3.1 test cycle and any issues if found, new bugs will be raised.
Hi Amar, I've edited the Doc Text for it's associated Errata. Request you to review the same and let me know in case of any concerns. If no changes are required, request you to provide your approval for the same.
The DocText is fine as per technicality. Would like to understand from PM if this is what users want to see or they want to see different wording for the feature.
Since the problem described in this bug report should be resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated files, follow the link below. If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report. https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2017:3276
The needinfo request[s] on this closed bug have been removed as they have been unresolved for 500 days