Skip to content

Standardize node volume claim naming #76

@brucetony

Description

@brucetony

The prefixes for PVCs are inconsistent and should be standardized:

NAME                                                      STATUS   VOLUME                                     CAPACITY   ACCESS MODES   STORAGECLASS        VOLUMEATTRIBUTESCLASS   AGE
data-node-datastore-blaze-0                               Bound    pvc-293b0572-79ba-448a-a750-7a02eab3bff1   5Gi        RWO            microk8s-hostpath   <unset>                 57s
flame-node-minio                                          Bound    pvc-32989c5b-c26e-4a63-acc9-6ad3ba29f3ba   10Gi       RWO            microk8s-hostpath   <unset>                 58s
mongodb-volume-flame-node-mongodb-0                       Bound    pvc-99eac6ee-29bd-4a82-860c-f001e805f069   500Mi      RWO            longhorn-r1         <unset>                 57s
node-datastore-minio                                      Bound    pvc-b264e5bd-4af8-4add-bd3e-5ad3a4940769   5Gi        RWO            longhorn-r1         <unset>                 58s
postgres-data-flame-node-postgresql-0                     Bound    pvc-babafeda-4151-4b7e-a148-84eb3561c251   8Gi        RWO            longhorn-r1         <unset>                 57s
postgres-data-keycloak-flame-node-keycloak-postgresql-0   Bound    pvc-aa1de7bc-da13-422b-8f8c-11786bdfe22f   8Gi        RWO            longhorn-r1         <unset>                 56s
postgres-data-kong-flame-node-kong-postgresql-0           Bound    pvc-95715665-abd7-4450-9d8f-4baf21a914da   2Gi        RWO            longhorn-r1         <unset>                 57s

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

nodeSpecific issue for Node deployment

Type

Projects

No projects

Relationships

None yet

Development

No branches or pull requests

Issue actions