Perfect, that answer and clarify. Thank you, Nakayama,
I was able to bound a PV which has label selectors using a PVC which doesn’t have any selectors. This behavior completely makes useless our storage labeling strategy. We want to label few volumes (special volumes by cost/performance/size) to specific clients and want only that clients can use these PV using label selectors. Clients who don’t mention label selectors in PVC should bound general volumes This concerns us a lot. How to deal this issue? -- Srinivas Kotaru From: Nakayama Kenjiro <[email protected]> Date: Friday, January 13, 2017 at 4:10 AM To: Srinivas Naga Kotaru <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, dev <[email protected]> Subject: Re: storage labels 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) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 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: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 1:25 PM To: Srinivas Naga Kotaru <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: dev <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: storage labels Yes On Jan 12, 2017, at 4:23 PM, Srinivas Naga Kotaru (skotaru) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: How to represent TB storage in PV? Is it Ti , similar to Gi? -- Srinivas Kotaru From: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Srinivas Naga Kotaru <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: dev <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 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 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshiftmm/listinfo/dev _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshiftmm/listinfo/dev -- Kenjiro NAKAYAMA <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> GPG Key fingerprint = ED8F 049D E67A 727D 9A44 8E25 F44B E208 C946 5EB9
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshiftmm/listinfo/dev
