pingcap / pingcap/tidb-operator
PV of DM Cluster miss labels like PV of TiDB Cluster
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Go
- Stars
- 1.3k
- Forks
- 540
- Avg merge
- 3d 2h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 18
Description
Bug Report
What version of Kubernetes are you using?
v1.24.3
What version of TiDB Operator are you using?
v1.3.7
What storage classes exist in the Kubernetes cluster and what are used for PD/TiKV pods?
test both local volumn and AWS EBS
What's the status of the TiDB cluster pods?
What did you do?
use tidb-operator deploying DM Cluster
What did you expect to see?
PV of DM Cluster also has labels like PV of TiDB Cluster
What did you see instead?
PV of DM Cluster miss labels like PV of TiDB Cluster
Contributor guide
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 by locating the DM Cluster persistent-volume handling and comparing it with the corresponding TiDB Cluster behavior; the report provides no file or test path. Done means DM Cluster PVs receive the same labels as TiDB Cluster PVs when using the reported storage classes.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- go, kubernetes
- Domain
- devops, infrastructure
- Issue type
- Bug
- Difficulty
- 3/5
- Estimated time
- 1-2 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 42/100