Bug 1372430 - [RFE] Match strorage-class labels with pv-selectors
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: 2023-09-14 03:30 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:
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)


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

Comment 4 Red Hat Bugzilla 2023-09-14 03:30:29 UTC
The needinfo request[s] on this closed bug have been removed as they have been unresolved for 1000 days


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