Repository navigation
OSAC-3234: CaaS local storage — LVMS on guest cluster workers #199
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Changes from all commits
977790e
90ef3cd
7363957
9a48724
79f87c9
b841440
a83d950
bdcc30f
2bd1c8d
9e3107a
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -1,12 +1,15 @@ | ||
| --- | ||
| title: LVMS Storage Provider | ||
| description: > | ||
| Provisions per-tenant StorageClasses on the hub cluster using the LVMS (LVM Storage) | ||
| topolvm provisioner. No external backend or credentials required — LVMS is | ||
| installed on the hub by osac-installer when lvms.enabled=true. Hub cluster only; | ||
| CaaS guest cluster storage is out of scope. | ||
| Provisions per-tenant StorageClasses using the LVMS (LVM Storage) topolvm provisioner. | ||
| No external backend or credentials required. Hub path: LVMS is installed on the hub by | ||
| osac-installer when lvms.enabled=true. CaaS guest-cluster path: LVMS operator is | ||
| installed via OLM on the guest cluster when admin_kubeconfig is provided in the event | ||
| (requires a raw block device on the worker node — see setup-caas-agents.sh | ||
| AGENT_VM_DATA_DISK_SIZE). | ||
| template_type: storage_provider | ||
| implementation_strategy: lvms | ||
| capabilities: | ||
| provisioning_targets: | ||
| - vmaas | ||
| - caas | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I see your point. However, I don't think the categories imply networked storage. Instead, they are more about what purpose the storage serves. Also, i thought if we stay consistent, we could create an enum and use it for other storage backends vs. each backend defining it's own provisioning target. LMK your thoughts. It's ok if you tackle this separately. |
||
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.