opendevstack / opendevstack/ods-core
why we need define storage-provisioner on persistentVolumeClaim
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Shell
- Stars
- 53
- Forks
- 34
- Avg merge
- 3h 26m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 1
Description
Describe the Question
I want to discuss why the storage-provisioner has to be configurable, as defined in pvc.yml:
- apiVersion: v1
kind: PersistentVolumeClaim
metadata:
annotations:
volume.beta.kubernetes.io/storage-class: ${STORAGE_CLASS_DATA}
volume.beta.kubernetes.io/storage-provisioner: ${STORAGE_PROVISIONER}
The provisioner can be defined in the storage-class, that is referenced by the annotation volume.beta.kubernetes.io/storage-class
For example, a storage-class for local-storage can be defined:
kind: StorageClass
apiVersion: storage.k8s.io/v1
metadata:
name: local-storage
annotations:
storageclass.kubernetes.io/is-default-class: 'true'
provisioner: kubernetes.io/no-provisioner
reclaimPolicy: Delete
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start with nexus/ocp-config/pvc.yml and compare the PVC annotations with the referenced StorageClass and its provisioner setting. Confirm whether the storage-provisioner annotation is required or redundant for the supported Kubernetes/OpenShift setup. Done means documenting the rationale or resolving the configuration question.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- kubernetes
- Domain
- infrastructure
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100