Skip to content

Added storage to limits and quota #3084

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 31, 2016

Conversation

markturansky
Copy link
Member

Storage was added to Quota in Kube 1.4.

Limits are being cherry picked via openshift/origin#11396

@derekwaynecarr @abhgupta

@markturansky
Copy link
Member Author

@bfallonf

@bfallonf
Copy link

@markturansky Thanks!

About labels though, what version of enterprise would this apply to? I can make a followup PR, but I don't want to put it in live docs if it's for future release.

@markturansky
Copy link
Member Author

@bfallonf can you elaborate on labels? I'm not sure I know the answer to that.

@ahardin-rh
Copy link
Contributor

@markturansky we label PRs to indicate what branches the content should be cherrypicked to. I am assuming that this content should be introduced in the 3.4 docs since it aligns with Kube 1.4, so it should probably be marked for enterprise-3.4 and dedicated-3.4. Does that sound right? Thanks!

@markturansky
Copy link
Member Author

@ahardin-rh yes, thanks for that clarification. I think that OSE 3.4 and Dedicated 3.4 sounds right.

@ahardin-rh
Copy link
Contributor

@markturansky Thanks! Labels are now set.

@bfallonf
Copy link

Thanks for stepping in @ahardin-rh ! Yes, that's what I meant.

@markturansky is this OK to merge? Does it need approval by anyone else?

@markturansky
Copy link
Member Author

@bfallonf I suppose @derekwaynecarr can weigh in, but these are the same doc additions I made upstream that he approved there.

@@ -51,6 +51,11 @@ interchangeably.
exceed this value. `*memory*` and `*requests.memory*` are the same value and can
be used interchangeably.

|`*storage*`
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is not accurate. ResourceQuota only supports requests.storage

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

fixed

spec:
hard:
persistentvolumeclaims: "10" <1>
storage: "50Gi" <2>
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

make this requests.storage.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

fixed

@@ -51,6 +51,11 @@ interchangeably.
exceed this value. `*memory*` and `*requests.memory*` are the same value and can
be used interchangeably.

|`*requests.storage*`
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

we can remove this and avoid listing the same value twice ;-)

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

fixed. not paying attention...

@bfallonf
Copy link

@markturansky @derekwaynecarr OK. Thanks, all. I'll merge away!

@bfallonf bfallonf merged commit 986eb55 into openshift:master Oct 31, 2016
@bfallonf
Copy link

[rev_history]
|xref:../admin_guide/limits.adoc#admin-guide-limits[Setting Limit Ranges]
|Added the xref:../admin_guide/limits.adoc#claim-limits[PersistentVolumeClaim Limits] section.
%
|xref:../admin_guide/quota.adoc#admin-guide-quot[Setting Quotas]
|Added information for the *requests.storage* value and a storage-consumption.yaml example.
%

@vikram-redhat vikram-redhat modified the milestones: Future Release, Staging, OCP 3.4 GA Jan 16, 2017
@vikram-redhat vikram-redhat removed this from the Staging milestone Jan 16, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants