Uploaded image for project: 'Multiple Architecture Enablement'
  1. Multiple Architecture Enablement
  2. MULTIARCH-5554

Support for CIFS/SMB CSI Driver Operator

XMLWordPrintable

    • Support for CIFS/SMB CSI Driver Operator
    • To Do
    • None
    • False
    • Hide

      None

      Show
      None
    • False
    • Not Selected
    • Hide

      [20 Nov] <GREEN> GREEN
      ec build with fbc testing complete. resizer fixed

      [13 Nov] <GREEN> GREEN
      Using EC Build FBC workaround, Resizer missing from mirror.

      Show
      [20 Nov] <GREEN> GREEN ec build with fbc testing complete. resizer fixed [13 Nov] <GREEN > GREEN Using EC Build FBC workaround, Resizer missing from mirror.
    • S

      Epic Goal
      CIFS/SMB CSI Driver Operator allows customers to support Container Storage Interface (CSI) driver for Common Internet File System (CIFS) dialect/Server Message Block (SMB) protocol.

      This epic turns on the flag and adds testing on the Power environment.

      Why is this important?
      Customers with existing SMB/CIFS shares can use them in a Power OpenShift.
      SMB/CIFS has some advantages over NFS with retry and recovery logic.

      Scenarios
      As a cluster-admin, I install the CSI CIFS operator.
      As a cluster-admin, I uninstall the CSI CIFS operator.
      As a developer, I add a PV/PVC pointing to a SMB share.
      As a developer, I restart the smb share service, and recover and tests files previously and newly written to the share.

      Acceptance Criteria
      The scenarios are passed.
      The operator hub is updated.
      The docs are updated.

      Dependencies (internal and external)
      The CSI / storage team must buy in. It should be only done downstream in OpenShift changing the CSV supported arch.

      1. From a technical or non-technical perspective, what is required from/of the team ? Review a PR to update the bundle.
      2. Have they formally aligned to the plan/requirement for MultiArch to complete this ticket in 4.21 ? I've asked.
      3. What's the associated Dependency date(s) ? Not sure what this question is asking
      4. Can their related Jira ticket(s) be linked from this epic for transparency ? No related JIRA.

      Previous Work (Optional)
      Power Team tested with the existing images in catalog.redhat.com.

      Open questions
      n/a

      Done Checklist

      • CI - For new features (non-enablement), existing Multi-Arch CI jobs are not broken by the Epic
      • Release Enablement: <link to Feature Enablement Presentation>
      • DEV - Upstream code and tests merged: <link to meaningful PR orf GitHub Issue>
      • DEV - Upstream documentation merged: <link to meaningful PR or GitHub Issue>
      • DEV - If the Epic is adding a new stream, downstream build attached to advisory: <link to errata>
      • QE - Test plans in Test Plan tracking software (e.g. Polarion, RQM, etc.): <link or reference to the Test Plan>
      • QE - Automated tests merged: <link or reference to automated tests>
      • QE - QE to verify documentation when testing
      • DOC - Downstream documentation merged: <link to meaningful PR>
      • All the stories, tasks, sub-tasks and bugs that belong to this epic need to have been completed and indicated by a status of 'Done'.

              pbastide_rh Paul Bastide
              pbastide_rh Paul Bastide
              Brian Cogan, Duncan Hardie, Sherine Khoury
              None
              None
              ocp-multi-arch-ibm-partners
              Votes:
              0 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              4 Start watching this issue

                Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved: