Change wrap app/db PV definitions into kube templates

[tbielawa]

This is a follow up to #222 RFE/Question - Turn PV examples into templates

---

Description

The current docs describe creating the required PVs in terms of simply editing the provided app/db examples with the required NFS paths. This change turns creating PVs into a no-editing-required process by wrapping the PV objects in kube templates.

Usage

Using a template in this PR is pretty simple! No more editing required

Template Parameters

• DB_PV_SIZE - Defaults to the recommended PV size for the DB template
• APP_PV_SIZE - ** Defaults to the recommended PV size for the app template
• BASE_PATH - Defaults to /exports
• NFS_HOST - No Default - Value must be provided when processing/creating

Method 1 - Create Template, Process and Create Later

# oc create -f /path/to/miq-pv-example.yaml
# ... do stuff ...
# oc process miq-pv-example -p NFS_HOST=nfs.example.com | oc create -f -

Method 2 - Process Template and Create in one pass

# oc process /path/to/miq-pv-example.yaml -p NFS_HOST=nfs.example.com | oc create -f -

---

The current descriptions don't look like the rest of the manageiq descriptions, probably want to re-word these

[root@m01 ~]# oc get template
NAME              DESCRIPTION                                  PARAMETERS     OBJECTS
manageiq          ManageIQ appliance with persistent storage   54 (1 blank)   23
manageiq-app-pv   PV Template for MIQ Server                   3 (1 blank)    1
manageiq-db-pv    PV Template for MIQ PostgreSQL DB            3 (1 blank)    1

Questions

1. Do you want to change the template descriptions to match what you already are doing?
2. The app/db templates are using different parameter names for their spec.capacity.storage parameters: APP_PV_SIZE vs. DB_PV_SIZE. Do you want those to stay different, or do you want them to be the same, i.e., unify on a single name like MIQ_PV_SIZE or something?

[tbielawa]

Oh I made the spec tests upset.

[tbielawa]

I ran the rspec locally, I think I fixed the lint. Silly double quoting.

[fbladilo]

@tbielawa @carbonin I believe those default sizes are reasonable for a standard deployment (probably oversized for dev environments). I guess eventually we could revisit them, should be easy to adjust if needed.

Question regarding the templated PV creation :

Will the NFS shares now be configured automagically by OpenShift when the template is created/processed? Or this is something that still has to be done manually by Admin?

[tbielawa]

@fbladilo said

Will the NFS shares now be configured by OpenShift when the template is created/processed? Or this is something that still has to be done manually by Admin.

Using the openshift-ansible openshift_cfme role, with the default value for openshift_cfme_storage_class (nfs) then:

1. the templates are created
2. the app PV is processed and created
3. the db PV is conditionally processed and created

Note: in the PR there are still some hard-coded hostnames. I'm going to fix those to be standardized today

Using the role or not, this project will need a README update to describe how to create the actual PVs using the proposed templates in this PR. Method 1 and Method 2 (described in the OP) should be a good starting point

[fbladilo]

@tbielawa 👍 Yep will certainly will need to adjust our instructions on README, looks like an improvement. I like option 2 with a single pass modifying default parameters.

[carbonin]

1. Do you want to change the template descriptions to match what you already are doing?

I'm not very concerned with the descriptions, I think what you have here is fine.

2. The app/db templates are using different parameter names for their spec.capacity.storage parameters: APP_PV_SIZE vs. DB_PV_SIZE. Do you want those to stay different, or do you want them to be the same, i.e., unify on a single name like MIQ_PV_SIZE or something?

I think the same parameter name would be more user friendly. Maybe just PV_SIZE namespacing any more in a template that is already called manageiq-*-pv feels a bit redundant.

Also, @tbielawa would you mind updating the README as a part of this patch? The explanation that you have in your description seems great.

[tbielawa]

@carbonin no problem to all comments

[tbielawa]

This fine?

[carbonin]

After PV creation, but before deploying the app I wouldn't expect these to be Bound

[tbielawa]

Whoops. True. That's a copy/paste from a deployed instance.

…

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 9:43 AM, Nick Carboni ***@***.***> wrote: ***@***.**** commented on this pull request. ------------------------------ In README.md <#224 (comment)> : > ```bash $ oc get pv -NAME CAPACITY ACCESSMODES RECLAIMPOLICY STATUS CLAIM REASON AGE -miq-pv01 15Gi RWO Recycle Available 30s -miq-pv02 5Gi RWO Recycle Available 19s +NAME CAPACITY ACCESSMODES RECLAIMPOLICY STATUS CLAIM STORAGECLASS REASON AGE +miq-app 4Gi RWO Retain Bound manageiq/manageiq-server-manageiq-0 1d +miq-db 10Gi RWO Retain Bound manageiq/manageiq-postgresql 1d After PV creation, but before deploying the app I wouldn't expect these to be Bound

[tbielawa]

@carbonin fixed that for ya

[miq-bot]

Checked commit tbielawa@e648adc with ruby 2.2.6, rubocop 0.47.1, and haml-lint 0.20.0
0 files checked, 0 offenses detected
Everything looks fine. 👍

[carbonin]

Looks great! Thanks for the patch @tbielawa