Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.

Bug 1916439

Summary:	[RFE] Support addition of multiple NFS cinder backends without requiring for container customization or post scripts
Product:	Red Hat OpenStack	Reporter:	Jacob Ansari <jansari>
Component:	openstack-tripleo-heat-templates	Assignee:	Cinder Bugs List <cinder-bugs>
Status:	CLOSED DUPLICATE	QA Contact:	Tzach Shefi <tshefi>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:	Chuck Copello <ccopello>
Priority:	medium
Version:	13.0 (Queens)	CC:	abishop, gcharot, mburns
Target Milestone:	---	Keywords:	FutureFeature, Triaged
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2021-01-15 20:52:19 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Jacob Ansari 2021-01-14 19:34:59 UTC

Description of problem:
Using more than one NFS backend for Cinder currently requires either a custom cinder-volume container image or using post scripts, as is detailed in  https://access.redhat.com/solutions/3668071 and in case 02659878 . A simpler, less involved method that could be documented in deployment docs would be an advantageous .


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
OSP13 and higher

Comment 1 Alan Bishop 2021-01-14 20:31:41 UTC

I looked at the customer case and see this is NetApp and not generic NFS. The good news is the feature request is already covered by bug #1640198, and is targeted for OSP-17.

This BZ could be closed as a duplicate of the other, but I wonder if the customer would be happy waiting until OSP-17.

@Greg, we need your input on how to target this BZ and bug #1640198.

Comment 3 Alan Bishop 2021-01-15 20:52:19 UTC

Closing per comment #2. To answer the question posed there, it would not be technically difficult or risky to backport the upstream patches to make the feature available in OSP-16.2. The only  challenge would be getting two separate patches through the CI gates across 3 upstream releases.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1640198 ***