Skip to content
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

Issue with k8s.io/docs/concepts/storage/persistent-volumes/ #14714

Closed
antaloala opened this issue Jun 4, 2019 · 3 comments · Fixed by #14811
Closed

Issue with k8s.io/docs/concepts/storage/persistent-volumes/ #14714

antaloala opened this issue Jun 4, 2019 · 3 comments · Fixed by #14811

Comments

@antaloala
Copy link
Contributor

This is a Bug Report

Problem:
In the persistent-volumes introduction section it is said: A PersistentVolume (PV) is a piece of storage in the cluster that has been provisioned by an administrator.

Once we have dynamic provisioning of storage volumes (through StorageClasses and provisioners) it should be also said that PVs can be dynamically created using this support.

Proposed Solution:
A PersistentVolume (PV) is a piece of storage in the cluster that has been provisioned by an administrator or dynamically provisioned using Storage Classes

Page to Update:
https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/storage/persistent-volumes/

@zhangqx2010
Copy link
Contributor

IMHO, here provisioned by an administrator is generally speaking. The problem could be just ignored.
Note the description in the next section:

Static
A cluster administrator creates a number of PVs. They carry the details of the real 
storage which is available for use by cluster users. They exist in the Kubernetes API 
and are available for consumption.

Dynamic
When none of the static PVs the administrator created matches a user’s 
PersistentVolumeClaim, the cluster may try to dynamically provision a 
volume specially for the PVC. This provisioning is based on StorageClasses: 
the PVC must request a storage class and the administrator must have created 
and configured that class in order for dynamic provisioning to occur. Claims 
that request the class "" effectively disable dynamic provisioning for themselves.

@antaloala
Copy link
Contributor Author

I think in your answer you are implicitly recognizing the missing text reported.
In the text you copied (from current doc. version) 'admin creation' is only used for the static part, for the PV dynamic creation it is not used.
I still think the proposed change would make the doc. more consistent.

@zhangqx2010
Copy link
Contributor

+1 for consistency.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants