Bug 1372430 - [RFE] Match strorage-class labels with pv-selectors [NEEDINFO]
Summary: [RFE] Match strorage-class labels with pv-selectors
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: OpenShift Container Platform
Classification: Red Hat
Component: RFE
Version: 3.4.0
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
: ---
Assignee: Paul Morie
QA Contact: Johnny Liu
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2016-09-01 17:00 UTC by Brennan Vincello
Modified: 2019-12-16 06:36 UTC (History)
7 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2017-01-18 12:53:13 UTC
Target Upstream Version:
erich: needinfo? (bvincell)

Attachments (Terms of Use)
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Product Errata RHBA-2017:0066 0 normal SHIPPED_LIVE Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 3.4 RPM Release Advisory 2017-01-18 17:23:26 UTC

Description Brennan Vincello 2016-09-01 17:00:15 UTC 
Ticket created to track: https://trello.com/c/LMc4eVgW/105-5-storage-classes-match-labels-with-the-selectors-ops-rfe-qos

Mirrored: As a user I want the storage-class labels to match on the pv-selector so I can explicitly ask for a storage with certain properties (speed, ...), assuming that the system admin labeled the Persistent Volumes appropriately.
Comment 1 Eric Paris 2016-09-01 18:21:34 UTC 
I do not understand this BZ. The card in question is done, complete, and closed.

The phrase 'storage-class labels' does not make sense to me. Well, the StorageClass object does have labels, but they are not relevant to any form of PVC->PV binding.

For a PVC to bind to a PV the size, access mode, StorageClass, and LabelSelector between the PVC and PV must ALL be satisfied.

Is this BZ just intended to be a placeholder until the LabelSelector is in OCP (3.3?) or when StorageClasses are in OCP (3.4?)
Comment 3 errata-xmlrpc 2017-01-18 12:53:13 UTC 
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-2017:0066
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.