Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.

Bug 859405

Summary: Remove storage column in Administer-Content-Hardware until values are included in the field
Product: [Retired] CloudForms Cloud Engine Reporter: james labocki <jlabocki>
Component: aeolus-conductorAssignee: Tzu-Mainn Chen <tzumainn>
Status: CLOSED EOL QA Contact: Rehana <aeolus-qa-list>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: high    
Version: 1.1.0CC: dajohnso, morazi, sseago
Target Milestone: rc   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Release Note
Doc Text:
The profile 'storage' column is less useful than it might seem from the UI. Any general-purpose Hardware Profile (i.e. one that can match any provider) should leave the storage field blank, since neither RHEV nor vSphere use it. For a Hardware Profile intended to match ec2 specifically, specifying a value for storage will guarantee matching an ec2 instance size with at least that much "instance storage" available. However, this storage is not root FS size -- it is "ephemeral" storage and may require explicit user action to mount it in the instance, depending on the image/instance configuration.
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2020-03-27 17:57:59 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:
Attachments:
Description Flags
screenshot none

Description james labocki 2012-09-21 13:34:33 UTC
Description of problem:
The Administer-Content-Hardware screen has a "Storage" column. The column contains no values and it does not appear that it serves any purpose yet as the amount of storage the image has when launched is not configurable. 

Since this value is not used yet, can we please remove it from the WUI until a later release? See attached screenshot.

Comment 1 james labocki 2012-09-21 13:34:54 UTC
Created attachment 615428 [details]
screenshot

Comment 3 Mike Orazi 2012-09-21 17:52:20 UTC
This would be a fairly impactful change, so we'll release note and move this bug to 2.0 for consideration.