On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Clayton Coleman <ccole...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Pre binding is something an admin can do as well, I assume? That's our > short term story for "here's how I preallocate a claim"? > Yes, if the admin knows how to make a ClaimRef for pv.Spec.ClaimRef. As a feature, this is currently undocumented and untested through QE. > > On Mar 17, 2016, at 2:55 PM, Mark Turansky <mtura...@redhat.com> wrote: > > And to be specific, when the PV is provisioned *for that claim*, it will > be pre-bound to that claim and only that claim will match it. > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Mark Turansky <mtura...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> No, dynamic provisioning currently uses an annotation on the claim in >> 3.2. The PVSelector on claim will be used for the expanded set of >> provisioners in 3.3. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Clayton Coleman <ccole...@redhat.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I thought the PV "I want this claim" annotation was in 3.2 for dynamic >>> provisioning? >>> >>> On Mar 17, 2016, at 2:49 PM, Mark Turansky <mtura...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Clayton Coleman <ccole...@redhat.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Do we have doc on how an admin can target a PV to a given PVC? >>>> >>> >>> >>> Not yet, but Volumes documentation should be updated when that feature >>> goes live in 3.3. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> On Mar 17, 2016, at 1:48 PM, Mark Turansky <mtura...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Marc, >>>> >>>> We're currently developing the ability to label PVs and add a selector >>>> to a claim. This will help a claim target a specific PV. That is slated >>>> for our 3.3 release. Until then, there's no way to deterministically bind >>>> a pvc to a pv. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Mark >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Marc Boorshtein < >>>> mboorsht...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I think I'm missing something. My container requires several >>>>> persistent volumes for configuration data. Right now the only way I can >>>>> guarantee that the PVC maps to the PV I want is to do them in order >>>>> (create >>>>> PV1, create PVC1, create PV2, create PVC2, etc). This works fine, but I'd >>>>> like to create a template and I get the feeling this strategy won't work >>>>> well. Is there a way I can tell os to bind a PVC to a specific PV based >>>>> on >>>>> the PV's metadata? Or is there a better way to do this that I'm >>>>> completely >>>>> missing? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> Marc >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> users mailing list >>>>> users@lists.openshift.redhat.com >>>>> http://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshiftmm/listinfo/users >>>>> >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> users mailing list >>>> users@lists.openshift.redhat.com >>>> http://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshiftmm/listinfo/users >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ users mailing list users@lists.openshift.redhat.com http://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshiftmm/listinfo/users
