Bug 1047656 - openstack-foreman: The cinder lvm driver isn't configured
Summary: openstack-foreman: The cinder lvm driver isn't configured
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat OpenStack
Classification: Red Hat
Component: rubygem-staypuft
Version: 4.0
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
: 5.0 (RHEL 7)
Assignee: RHOS Maint
QA Contact: Omri Hochman
URL:
Whiteboard: storage
Depends On:
Blocks: 1064889
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2014-01-01 15:58 UTC by Yogev Rabl
Modified: 2016-04-26 21:49 UTC (History)
7 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2014-08-05 19:51:58 UTC
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Yogev Rabl 2014-01-01 15:58:29 UTC
Description of problem:
The parameter of the cinder driver
volume_driver=cinder.volume.drivers.lvm.LVMISCSIDriver
isn't configured in /etc/cinder/cinder.conf file. 

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
foreman-proxy-1.3.0-3.el6sat.noarch

Comment 2 Perry Myers 2014-03-08 19:52:20 UTC
@yrabl: What is the impact of this bug?  Does it mean that via Foreman, Cinder can never work with LVM as the backend?

Also, a bit confused.  You have set the priority/severity to medium, but this is listed as a blocker.  Those two settings I think are in conflict.  If this bug implies that Foreman can never use Cinder with LVM, I would consider this bug to be High Priority vs. Medium.  Please clarify.  If this is indeed as I describe above, we can move this from RHOS 5.0 target to 4.0.z.

Comment 3 Yogev Rabl 2014-03-09 08:16:15 UTC
(In reply to Perry Myers from comment #2)
The problem is that the Foreman doesn't configure the LVM driver automatically, and the user needs to configure the bug manually. Unlike Packstack, after the Foreman installation the user still needs to configure the Cinder's back end post installation.

The priority is set for medium because it has a workaround (and there's plenty of documentation about it).

Comment 4 Perry Myers 2014-03-09 14:33:06 UTC
Ok, thanks for the clarification here.  I agree that the bug is medium priority then, and that targeting RHOS 5.0 makes sense.  I will remove the blocker flag though.

Comment 5 Mike Burns 2014-05-22 19:53:55 UTC
Is this something that we want staypuft/OFI to be doing on behalf of the user long term?  Or should we leave that to the user to configure themselves?

Comment 6 Andrew Cathrow 2014-05-22 21:21:48 UTC
(In reply to Mike Burns from comment #5)
> Is this something that we want staypuft/OFI to be doing on behalf of the
> user long term?  Or should we leave that to the user to configure themselves?

I see this as something we'll do with plugins/conf driven UI feature that Arthur is discussing

Comment 7 Mike Burns 2014-08-05 19:51:58 UTC
This bug was handled or obsoleted during the GA2 redesign work.  If you believe that this still applies to the current UI, please re-open this bug.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.