Bug 1848738 - remove pvc name from example prometheus storage config
Summary: remove pvc name from example prometheus storage config
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: OpenShift Container Platform
Classification: Red Hat
Component: Documentation
Version: 4.5
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
low
low
Target Milestone: ---
: 4.5.z
Assignee: Paul Needle
QA Contact: Junqi Zhao
Vikram Goyal
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2020-06-18 20:46 UTC by Paul Gier
Modified: 2023-10-06 20:42 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2021-04-29 15:24:52 UTC
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Bugzilla 1832124 0 high CLOSED Upgrading from 4.3.18 to 4.4.3 , causing Prometheus creating new PVC 2023-10-06 19:54:19 UTC

Description Paul Gier 2020-06-18 20:46:50 UTC
Document URL: 
https://docs.openshift.com/container-platform/4.4/monitoring/cluster_monitoring/configuring-the-monitoring-stack.html#configuring-a-local-persistent-volume-claim_configuring-monitoring


Section Number and Name: 
Monitoring -> Configuring the Monitoring Stack -> Configuring a local persistent volume claim

Describe the issue: 
The example configuration sets a custom name for the PVC instead of using the default.  This setting is unnecessary and due to a bug (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1832124) in the way prometheus operator handles metadata this setting can cause problems during upgrades between certain versions.

Suggestions for improvement: 
Remove the volumeClaimTemplate.metadata.name field from the example.

      volumeClaimTemplate:
        metadata:
          name: localpvc


Additional information:

Comment 1 Junqi Zhao 2020-06-19 03:32:29 UTC
@Paul

I don't it is a good solution, two reasons:
1. since the bug is fixed in 4.4.9 and higher version, only exists in 4.4.0-4.4.8, if we want to change the 4.4 doc, there are also other parts should be changed, example, step 2 of 4.4 doc
**************************
      volumeClaimTemplate:
        metadata:
          name: <PVC_name_prefix>


4.4 doc: https://docs.openshift.com/container-platform/4.4/monitoring/cluster_monitoring/configuring-the-monitoring-stack.html#configuring-a-local-persistent-volume-claim_configuring-monitoring

2. for consistency, we should also change 4.1/4.2/4.3 doc, otherwise if customer configured the volumeClaimTemplate.metadata.name in these versions and upgrade to [4.4.0,4.4.8], they still would meet the issue

4.1 doc: https://docs.openshift.com/container-platform/4.3/monitoring/cluster_monitoring/configuring-the-monitoring-stack.html#configuring-a-local-persistent-volume-claim_configuring-monitoring
4.2 doc:https://docs.openshift.com/container-platform/4.2/monitoring/cluster_monitoring/configuring-the-monitoring-stack.html#configuring-a-local-persistent-volume-claim_configuring-monitoring
4.3 doc: https://docs.openshift.com/container-platform/4.1/monitoring/cluster_monitoring/configuring-the-monitoring-stack.html#configuring-a-local-persistent-volume-claim_configuring-monitoring

I should keep the doc unchanged, and advise customer upgrade to 4.4.9 and higher version. WDYT?

Comment 2 Paul Gier 2020-06-19 12:51:42 UTC
@Junqi I get your point, but I'd prefer that we remove it for all versions since it's not necessary.  And it should be a very uncommon use case that a customer would want/need to use a name other than the default.

Comment 3 Junqi Zhao 2020-06-22 02:34:29 UTC
(In reply to Paul Gier from comment #2)
> @Junqi I get your point, but I'd prefer that we remove it for all versions
> since it's not necessary.  And it should be a very uncommon use case that a
> customer would want/need to use a name other than the default.

Thanks,it makes sense, then we should update 4.4 doc first, then update 4.1 - 4.3 docs

Comment 4 Paul Needle 2021-04-28 16:42:47 UTC
Pull request: https://github.com/openshift/openshift-docs/pull/32016.

The PR applies to branch/enterprise-4.5 only, because the volume claim template name has been removed from the examples in the equivalent section for 4.6 onward already.


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