Bug 2213537 - [GSS]Incorrect information regarding PersistentVolumes and PersistentVolumeClaims in Inventory section at ocs-storagecluster-storagesystem
Summary: [GSS]Incorrect information regarding PersistentVolumes and PersistentVolumeCl...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat OpenShift Data Foundation
Classification: Red Hat Storage
Component: management-console
Version: 4.12
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: ---
: ---
Assignee: Sanjal Katiyar
QA Contact: Prasad Desala
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2023-06-08 13:27 UTC by Karun Josy
Modified: 2023-08-09 16:46 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2023-06-21 10:15:16 UTC
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Karun Josy 2023-06-08 13:27:34 UTC
#Description of problem (please be detailed as possible and provide log
snippets):

Incorrect information regarding PersistentVolumes and PersistentVolumeClaims in Inventory section at ocs-storagecluster-storagesystem in Openshift GUI.

It shows 2 PV  instead of 3. In the CLI we see all 3 persistentvolumes, based on disks, attached to the nodes (using openshift-local-storage to use local nodes disks like /dev/sdb). 


#Version of all relevant components (if applicable):
OCP 4.11
ODF 4.11


#Additional info:
Will be added in the following comments

Comment 5 Sanjal Katiyar 2023-06-08 14:21:18 UTC
Hi Karun,

This card shows only those PVCs that have Ceph based storage provisioners, that is:
  'ceph.rook.io/block',
  'cephfs.csi.ceph.com',
  'rbd.csi.ceph.com',

You can find the same in the official documentation: "The Inventory card shows the number of active nodes, PVCs and PVs backed by OpenShift Data Foundation provisioner".
(https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_openshift_data_foundation/4.12/html-single/monitoring_openshift_data_foundation/index)

I am assuming the PVCs in the attached screenshots should have been provisioned via "kubernetes.io/no-provisioner" ??

Please let me know if more info is needed.

Comment 6 Sanjal Katiyar 2023-06-08 14:22:58 UTC
> I am assuming the PVCs in the attached screenshots should have been
> provisioned via "kubernetes.io/no-provisioner" ??
> 

Or any other non Ceph (ODF) based provisioner.

Comment 8 Sanjal Katiyar 2023-06-15 10:36:39 UTC
Hi Karun,
Can we close this BZ ??


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