I think that following sentence in the docs is wrong(?).

https://docs.openshift.com/container-platform/3.3/install_config/storage_examples/binding_pv_by_label.html
  "It is important to note that a claim must match all of the key-value
pairs included in its selector stanza."

In my understanding, it should mean that:

OK
===
  PV:
    labels:
      A: B
      X: Y
  PVC:
    matchLabels:
      A: B
      X: Y

OK
===
  PV:
    labels:
      A: B
      X: Y
  PVC:
    matchLabels:
      A: B

NG
===
  PV:
    labels:
      A: B

  PVC:
    matchLabels:
      A: B
      X: Y

Regards,
Kenjiro

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 6:47 AM, Srinivas Naga Kotaru (skotaru) <
skot...@cisco.com> wrote:

> Thanks, Clayton
>
>
>
> Is it necessary to have both selectors to match in PVC to bound to PV or
> any one matching selector enough? In my testing PVC able to bound even one
> label selector match although I have 2 selectors in my PV.
>
> Documentiaotn says otherwise …
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Srinivas Kotaru*
>
>
>
> *From: *"ccole...@redhat.com" <ccole...@redhat.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 1:25 PM
> *To: *Srinivas Naga Kotaru <skot...@cisco.com>
> *Cc: *dev <dev@lists.openshift.redhat.com>
> *Subject: *Re: storage labels
>
>
>
> Yes
>
>
> On Jan 12, 2017, at 4:23 PM, Srinivas Naga Kotaru (skotaru) <
> skot...@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> How to represent TB storage in PV? Is it Ti , similar to Gi?
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Srinivas Kotaru*
>
>
>
> *From: *<dev-boun...@lists.openshift.redhat.com> on behalf of Srinivas
> Naga Kotaru <skot...@cisco.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, January 11, 2017 at 11:33 AM
> *To: *dev <dev@lists.openshift.redhat.com>
> *Subject: *storage labels
>
>
>
> Hi
>
>
>
> We are going to leverage storage labels feature with OCP 3.3. in storage
> label scenario, it seems PVC ignores PV capacity ( spec.capacity.storage)
> attribute and match depending on label selector in PV.
>
>
>
> Questions
>
>
>
> 1.      If yes, then why do we need to specifiy storage attributes in PV
> and PVC?
>
> 2.      If we have multiple sizes in single storage class, do we need to
> classify multiple lable selectors to match PVC claims? Like nfs-ssd-100gb
> for to match 100gb volumes, nfs-ssd-50gb for 50gb volumes?
>
>
>
> Am having different sizes of volumes in NFS, wondering single label enough
> or do I need to 1 label for same size volumes?
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Srinivas Kotaru*
>
> _______________________________________________
> dev mailing list
> dev@lists.openshift.redhat.com
> http://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshiftmm/listinfo/dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dev mailing list
> dev@lists.openshift.redhat.com
> http://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshiftmm/listinfo/dev
>
>


-- 
Kenjiro NAKAYAMA <nakayamakenj...@gmail.com>
GPG Key fingerprint = ED8F 049D E67A 727D 9A44  8E25 F44B E208 C946 5EB9
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@lists.openshift.redhat.com
http://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshiftmm/listinfo/dev

Reply via email to