Skip to content

Add support for setting StorageClass for state pvc #358

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

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

FTS152
Copy link

@FTS152 FTS152 commented Apr 28, 2025

Add a new field statePVSCName in SmbCommonConfig.spec that allows users to specify StorageClass for Samba StatefulSet's state PVC in ctdb cluster mode. If not set, state PVC uses default StorageClass as before.
For example:

  spec:
    network:
      publish: external
    statePVSCName: samba-operator-system-samba-service-storageclass

Refs #340

Add a new field statePVSCName in SmbCommonConfig.spec that allows
users to specify StorageClass for Samba StatefulSet's state PVC.
If not set, state PVC uses default StorageClass as before.

Signed-off-by: FTS152 <[email protected]>
// StateSCName specifies which StorageClass is to be used for this share.
// If left empty, the operator's default will be used.
// +optional
StatePVSCName string `json:"statePVSCName,omitempty"`

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'd say that storageClassName is a bit more common of a name for something like this. I've never seen it abbreviated as PVSC

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

My thought was that storageClassName might cause confusion with storageClassName in smbShare, as the two are used to configure different PVCs' storageClass.

@mergify mergify bot added the priority-review This PR deserves a look label May 13, 2025
Copy link

mergify bot commented May 13, 2025

This pull request now has conflicts with the target branch. Please resolve these conflicts and force push the updated branch.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
priority-review This PR deserves a look
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants