updates for block volumes #6554

erinboyd · 2017-12-04T22:54:27Z

Documentation updates for raw block volume support in for v1.9 as Alpha support

This change is

k8sio-netlify-preview-bot · 2017-12-04T22:56:21Z

Deploy preview ready!

Built with commit cbe2ba4

https://deploy-preview-6554--kubernetes-io-master-staging.netlify.com

erinboyd · 2017-12-04T23:05:40Z

@msau42 @mtanino @saad-ali Please review.

erinboyd · 2017-12-04T23:06:54Z

@zacharysarah New PR (I closed the last one) please let me know if you need me to update anything for 1.9 specifically

tengqm

Please propose to release-1.9 branch

tengqm · 2017-12-05T01:04:26Z

docs/concepts/storage/persistent-volumes.md

@@ -417,6 +429,86 @@ spec:

 `PersistentVolumes` binds are exclusive, and since `PersistentVolumeClaims` are namespaced objects, mounting claims with "Many" modes (`ROX`, `RWX`) is only possible within one namespace.

+## Raw Block Volume Support
+
+Static provisioning support for Raw Block Volumes is included as an alpha feature for v1.9. With this change are some new API labels that need to be used to facilitate this functionality. Currently, Fibre Channel is the only supported plugin for this feature.


Please don't refer to the new resource field(s) as label(s). It is confusing because ”label“ in Kubernetes is a special term.

Ah, yes. I can see how that can be confusing. I'll update. Thanks, @tengqm

zacharysarah · 2017-12-05T20:05:30Z

@erinboyd 👋 Base branch changed to release-1.9

zacharysarah

Good start! ✨ Some minor edits for clarity and format.

zacharysarah · 2017-12-05T20:49:13Z

docs/concepts/storage/persistent-volumes.md

@@ -203,6 +206,10 @@ Generally, a PV will have a specific storage capacity.  This is set using the PV

 Currently, storage size is the only resource that can be set or requested.  Future attributes may include IOPS, throughput, etc.

+### Volume Mode
+
+Prior to v1.9, the default behavior for all volume plugins was to create a filesystem on the persistent volume. With v1.9, the user can specify a volumeMode which will now support raw block devices in addition to fileystems. This feature is alpha in v1.9 and may change in the future. Valid values for volumeMode are "Filesystem" or "Block". If left unspecified it will default to "Filesystem" internally. This is an optional API parameter.


Prior to v1.9, the default behavior for all volume plugins was to create a filesystem on the persistent volume. With v1.9, the user can specify a volumeMode which will now support raw block devices in addition to file systems. Valid values for volumeMode are "Filesystem" or "Block". If left unspecified, volumeMode defaults to "Filesystem" internally. This is an optional API parameter. **Note:** This feature is alpha in v1.9 and may change in the future. {: .note}

So:

Prior to v1.9, the default behavior for all volume plugins was to create a filesystem on the persistent volume. With v1.9, the user can specify a volumeMode which will now support raw block devices in addition to file systems. Valid values for volumeMode are "Filesystem" or "Block". If left unspecified, volumeMode defaults to "Filesystem" internally. This is an optional API parameter.

Note: This feature is alpha in v1.9 and may change in the future.
{: .note}

zacharysarah · 2017-12-05T20:53:25Z

docs/concepts/storage/persistent-volumes.md

+```
+#### Volume Devices
+
+Since we aren't mounting a filesystem, when using a raw block device for a pod we specify the device path in the container rather than a mount path.


**Note:** When mounting a raw block device for a Pod instead of a file system, specify the device path in the container instead of a mount path. {: .note}

So:

Note: When mounting a raw block device for a Pod instead of a file system, specify the device path in the container instead of a mount path.
{: .note}

I'd prefer to use 'attaching' for raw block device. Mounting a raw block device is little bit strange expression.

When attaching a raw block device for a Pod instead of mounting a file system, specify the device path in the container instead of a mount path.

But will attaching be confused with volume attaching

agree.
In the docker document, they use 'add' for device. Do we use same term or mounting is ok for this case?

--device | | Add a host device to the container

Add is probably the best option

zacharysarah · 2017-12-05T20:54:45Z

docs/concepts/storage/persistent-volumes.md

+      persistentVolumeClaim:
+        claimName: block-pvc
+```
+#### Volume Devices


Delete this heading.

zacharysarah · 2017-12-05T20:57:04Z

docs/concepts/storage/persistent-volumes.md

+
+### Binding Block Volumes
+
+If a user requests a raw block volume by indicating this using the volumeMode label in the PersistentVolumeClaim spec, the binding rules differ slighty from previous releases that didn't consider this mode as part of the spec.


If a user requests a raw block volume using the volumeMode label in the PersistentVolumeClaim spec, the binding rules differ slighlyty from previous releases that didn't consider this mode as part of the spec.

So:

If a user requests a raw block volume using the volumeMode label in the PersistentVolumeClaim spec, the binding rules differ slighlyty from previous releases that didn't consider this mode as part of the spec.

Add a blank line after this paragraph.

zacharysarah · 2017-12-05T20:58:10Z

docs/concepts/storage/persistent-volumes.md

+### Binding Block Volumes
+
+If a user requests a raw block volume by indicating this using the volumeMode label in the PersistentVolumeClaim spec, the binding rules differ slighty from previous releases that didn't consider this mode as part of the spec.
+Listed is a table of possible combinations the user and admin might specify for requesting a raw block device. The table indicates if the volume will be bound or not given the combinations:


The following table shows possible combinations a user and admin might specify for requesting a raw block device. The table indicates if the volume will be bound or not for a given combinations:

So:

The following table shows possible combinations a user and admin might specify for requesting a raw block device. The table indicates if the volume will be bound or not for a given combinations:

zacharysarah · 2017-12-05T20:59:10Z

docs/concepts/storage/persistent-volumes.md

+
+If a user requests a raw block volume by indicating this using the volumeMode label in the PersistentVolumeClaim spec, the binding rules differ slighty from previous releases that didn't consider this mode as part of the spec.
+Listed is a table of possible combinations the user and admin might specify for requesting a raw block device. The table indicates if the volume will be bound or not given the combinations:
+Volume binding matrix for statically provisioned volumes:


Delete this line.

zacharysarah · 2017-12-05T21:01:27Z

docs/concepts/storage/persistent-volumes.md

+|   Filesystem  | Block           | NO BIND          |
+|   Filesystem  | unspecified     | BIND             |
+
+Please note for alpha release only statically provisioned volumes are supported thus care should be taken by the administrator to consider these value when working with raw block devices.


**Note:** Only statically provisioned volumes are supported for alpha release. Administrators should take care to consider these values when working with raw block devices. {: .note}

So:

Note: Only statically provisioned volumes are supported for alpha release. Administrators should take care to consider these values when working with raw block devices.
{: .note}

k8sio-netlify-preview-bot · 2017-12-06T14:01:25Z

Deploy preview ready!

Built with commit 5a41dcd

https://deploy-preview-6554--kubernetes-io-vnext-staging.netlify.com

erinboyd · 2017-12-06T14:06:16Z

@zacharysarah @mtanino @msau42 Updated. Please review

zacharysarah · 2017-12-06T22:47:21Z

@tengqm 👋 It looks like the changes meet your review requirements. Can you please switch your review to approval?

zacharysarah · 2017-12-06T22:48:03Z

@mtanino @msau42 👋 Bumping for tech review. Does this PR look good?

mtanino · 2017-12-06T22:59:30Z

lgtm from my side.

msau42 · 2017-12-07T04:25:56Z

docs/concepts/storage/persistent-volumes.md

@@ -203,6 +206,13 @@ Generally, a PV will have a specific storage capacity.  This is set using the PV

 Currently, storage size is the only resource that can be set or requested.  Future attributes may include IOPS, throughput, etc.

+### Volume Mode
+


Can you add this alpha tag to the beginning of each new section? Then you don't need the alpha note.

{% assign for_k8s_version="v1.9" %}{% include feature-state-alpha.md %}

msau42 · 2017-12-07T04:26:38Z

docs/concepts/storage/persistent-volumes.md

@@ -335,6 +346,10 @@ spec:

 Claims use the same conventions as volumes when requesting storage with specific access modes.

+### Volume Modes
+
+Claims use the same convention as volumes to indicates the consumption of the volume as either a filesystem or block device.


to indicate

msau42 · 2017-12-07T04:28:12Z

docs/concepts/storage/persistent-volumes.md

@@ -417,6 +432,87 @@ spec:

 `PersistentVolumes` binds are exclusive, and since `PersistentVolumeClaims` are namespaced objects, mounting claims with "Many" modes (`ROX`, `RWX`) is only possible within one namespace.

+## Raw Block Volume Support
+
+Static provisioning support for Raw Block Volumes is included as an alpha feature for v1.9. With this change are some new API fields that need to be used to facilitate this functionality. Currently, Fibre Channel is the only supported plugin for this feature.


Second sentence:
Raw block volumes can be specified through new API fields.

msau42 · 2017-12-07T04:30:34Z

docs/concepts/storage/persistent-volumes.md

+
+### Binding Block Volumes
+
+If a user requests a raw block volume by indicating this using the volumeMode field in the PersistentVolumeClaim spec, the binding rules differ slighty from previous releases that didn't consider this mode as part of the spec.


If a user requests a raw block volume through the persistentVolumeClaim.volumeMode field, it can only bind to PersistentVolume with the matching volumeMode field.

msau42 · 2017-12-07T04:31:07Z

docs/concepts/storage/persistent-volumes.md

+### Binding Block Volumes
+
+If a user requests a raw block volume by indicating this using the volumeMode field in the PersistentVolumeClaim spec, the binding rules differ slighty from previous releases that didn't consider this mode as part of the spec.
+Listed is a table of possible combinations the user and admin might specify for requesting a raw block device. The table indicates if the volume will be bound or not given the combinations:


I don't think we need this whole matrix. It can just be simplifeid to 'pvc.volumeMode' == 'pv.volumeMode'.

I like the matrix..personally @msau42

zacharysarah · 2017-12-07T05:49:50Z

@erinboyd 👋 This PR has merged. Can you please open a new PR based on release-1.9 to address @msau42's feedback? ☝️ Thanks in advance!

k8s-ci-robot added size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. labels Dec 4, 2017

k8s-github-robot assigned steveperry-53 Dec 4, 2017

erinboyd force-pushed the block-updates branch 3 times, most recently from 59164b3 to cbe2ba4 Compare December 4, 2017 23:05

tengqm requested changes Dec 5, 2017

View reviewed changes

zacharysarah changed the base branch from master to release-1.9 December 5, 2017 20:05

zacharysarah mentioned this pull request Dec 5, 2017

Release 1.9 #5978

Merged

zacharysarah suggested changes Dec 5, 2017

View reviewed changes

zacharysarah added Docs Review: Open Issues labels Dec 5, 2017

erinboyd force-pushed the block-updates branch from cbe2ba4 to d089d6b Compare December 6, 2017 13:58

updates for raw block devices

5a41dcd

erinboyd force-pushed the block-updates branch from d089d6b to 5a41dcd Compare December 6, 2017 14:03

zacharysarah approved these changes Dec 6, 2017

View reviewed changes

zacharysarah added Docs LGTM and removed Docs Review: Open Issues labels Dec 6, 2017

tengqm approved these changes Dec 7, 2017

View reviewed changes

tengqm merged commit 736fb02 into kubernetes:release-1.9 Dec 7, 2017

zacharysarah added Tech Review LGTM and removed Needs Tech Review labels Dec 7, 2017

msau42 reviewed Dec 7, 2017

View reviewed changes

zacharysarah mentioned this pull request Dec 7, 2017

[1.9] Issue Burndown kubernetes/sig-release#38

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

updates for block volumes #6554

updates for block volumes #6554

erinboyd commented Dec 4, 2017 •

edited by k8s-reviewable

Loading

k8sio-netlify-preview-bot commented Dec 4, 2017 •

edited

Loading

erinboyd commented Dec 4, 2017

erinboyd commented Dec 4, 2017

tengqm left a comment

tengqm Dec 5, 2017

erinboyd Dec 5, 2017

zacharysarah commented Dec 5, 2017

zacharysarah left a comment

zacharysarah Dec 5, 2017

zacharysarah Dec 5, 2017

mtanino Dec 6, 2017

msau42 Dec 6, 2017

mtanino Dec 6, 2017 •

edited

Loading

msau42 Dec 6, 2017

zacharysarah Dec 5, 2017

zacharysarah Dec 5, 2017

zacharysarah Dec 5, 2017

zacharysarah Dec 5, 2017

zacharysarah Dec 5, 2017

zacharysarah Dec 5, 2017

k8sio-netlify-preview-bot commented Dec 6, 2017 •

edited

Loading

erinboyd commented Dec 6, 2017

zacharysarah commented Dec 6, 2017

zacharysarah commented Dec 6, 2017

mtanino commented Dec 6, 2017

msau42 Dec 7, 2017

msau42 Dec 7, 2017

msau42 Dec 7, 2017

msau42 Dec 7, 2017

msau42 Dec 7, 2017

erinboyd Dec 19, 2017

zacharysarah commented Dec 7, 2017


		### Binding Block Volumes

		If a user requests a raw block volume by indicating this using the volumeMode label in the PersistentVolumeClaim spec, the binding rules differ slighty from previous releases that didn't consider this mode as part of the spec.

		@@ -203,6 +206,13 @@ Generally, a PV will have a specific storage capacity. This is set using the PV

		Currently, storage size is the only resource that can be set or requested. Future attributes may include IOPS, throughput, etc.

		### Volume Mode

updates for block volumes #6554

updates for block volumes #6554

Conversation

erinboyd commented Dec 4, 2017 • edited by k8s-reviewable Loading

k8sio-netlify-preview-bot commented Dec 4, 2017 • edited Loading

erinboyd commented Dec 4, 2017

erinboyd commented Dec 4, 2017

tengqm left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

zacharysarah commented Dec 5, 2017

zacharysarah left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mtanino Dec 6, 2017 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

k8sio-netlify-preview-bot commented Dec 6, 2017 • edited Loading

erinboyd commented Dec 6, 2017

zacharysarah commented Dec 6, 2017

zacharysarah commented Dec 6, 2017

mtanino commented Dec 6, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

zacharysarah commented Dec 7, 2017

erinboyd commented Dec 4, 2017 •

edited by k8s-reviewable

Loading

k8sio-netlify-preview-bot commented Dec 4, 2017 •

edited

Loading

mtanino Dec 6, 2017 •

edited

Loading

k8sio-netlify-preview-bot commented Dec 6, 2017 •

edited

Loading