robertdumitrescu opened a new issue, #511:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-helm-chart/issues/511
**Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.**
I'm somewhat frustrated when using selector and match labels with certain
cloud providers and their associated storage classes, as they often reject it
with errors stating that the claim selector is unsupported. This results in
delays and issues with volume provisioning, as illustrated by the following
logs:
Events:
```
Type Reason Age From
Message
---- ------ ---- ----
-------
Normal WaitForPodScheduled 29m
persistentvolume-controller
waiting for pod cloud-uat-pulsar-pulsar-manager-0 to be scheduled
Normal ExternalProvisioning 4m20s (x103 over 29m)
persistentvolume-controller
Waiting for a volume to be created either by the external provisioner
'csi.scaleway.com' or manually by the system administrator. If volume creation
is delayed, please verify that the provisioner is running and correctly
registered.
Normal Provisioning 3m36s (x15 over 29m)
csi.scaleway.com_control-plane-67454bbc7c-27m4t_23cb3f3e-f839-4812-8222-af5aea247d4d
External provisioner is provisioning volume for claim
"processing/cloud-uat-pulsar-pulsar-manager-data-cloud-uat-pulsar-pulsar-manager-0"
Warning ProvisioningFailed 3m36s (x15 over 29m)
csi.scaleway.com_control-plane-67454bbc7c-27m4t_23cb3f3e-f839-4812-8222-af5aea247d4d
failed to provision volume with StorageClass "sbs-default": claim Selector is
not supported
```
**Describe the solution you'd like**
I would like to have an additional property for volumes called
"existingClaim". This property would allow us to specify the name of an
existing claim and volume that is fully managed by other tools. By doing so, it
will provide more flexibility and compatibility with various cloud providers
and their storage classes, circumventing the issue of unsupported claim
selectors.
**Describe alternatives you've considered**
- Trying to manually create claims and volumes as pulsar helm charts expects
but this is incredibly limiting.
- Using different storage classes or providers that do not have these
restrictions, which might not always be feasible due to other dependencies and
constraints.
**Additional context**
This feature would greatly enhance the compatibility and flexibility of
volume management in environments with stringent storage class requirements. It
would streamline the provisioning process and reduce the likelihood of
encountering provisioning errors related to unsupported claim selectors.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
