►
From YouTube: Kubernetes SIG Storage 20201105
Description
Kubernetes Storage Special-Interest-Group (SIG) Meeting - 05 November 2020
Meeting Notes/Agenda: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-8KEG8AjAgKznS9NFm3qWqkGyCHmvU6HVl0sk5hwoAE/edit#heading=h.ayuygin3orio
Find out more about the Storage SIG here: https://github.com/kubernetes/community/tree/master/sig-storage
Moderator: Saad Ali (Google)
A
All
right
today
is
november
5
2020..
This
is
the
meeting
of
the
kubernetes
storage
special
interest
group.
As
a
reminder,
this
meeting
is
public
recorded
and
posted
on
youtube
on
the
agenda.
We're
going
to
go
over
the
planning,
spreadsheet
and
get
status
update
for
the
items
that
folks
are
working
on
important
dates
that
are
coming
up
november.
12Th
next
week
is
code
free.
So
if
there's
an
item
that
you're
working
on
for
this
1.20
release,
please
be
aware
of
this
deadline.
A
A
B
A
C
One
I
think
it
it
would
definitely
be
nice
to
apply
it
to
the
side
cars
as
well,
but
it's
not
something-
we've
been
really
doing
in
the
past,
but
but
I
think,
definitely
being
able
to
get
that
soak
time
and
being
able
to
release
the
side
cars
soon
after
kubernetes.
Actually
releases
is
a
good
goal
to
achieve.
A
A
A
D
Yeah,
so
I
have
I'm
working
on
I'll,
be
this
the
squadron
I'm
just
trying
to
get
the
enhancements
out
for
for
the
allowable
expansion
field
and
the
secret
thing,
and
I'm
following
up
with
the
pod
resizing
discussion
that
is
going
on
so,
but
we
are
not
going
to
end
write
any
code
for
this
that
in
this,
so
just
we
have
to
in
this
quarter.
We
just
have
to
get
the
designs
finalized
and
I'm
working
on,
read,
write
many
update
and
then
keshev.
D
D
D
F
Yeah,
so
a
lot
has
been
going
on
for
this
month,
so
eating
tests.
I
think
the
the
finalized
e3
test
is
getting
approved,
so
it's
on
the
way
to
get
merged
and
then
there's
a
test
on
secrets.
I
think
there's
some
comments
on
that,
so
we
need
to
move
that
one
to
the
mock
driver
instead
of
for
instead
of
right
now
it's
for
host
pass
and
gcpd
driver
which
does
not
really
use
secrets
and
then
stress
tests.
F
That's
a
review
in
progress
and
metrics
work
is
also
review
in
progress,
so
we
did
get
a
approve
from
tim
on
the
in
cpr
to
remove
the
feature
gate,
but
I
think
we
still
need
to.
I
think
we
shall
need
to
look
at
other
all
the
other
aspects
and
the
before
that
can
go
in
so
so
on
the
external
snapshotters
that
we
so
now
we
have
a
breakdown
that
pr
initially
it
has
everything
together
the
api
changes
and
the
controller
changes.
F
So
now
we
break
it
up
now
it
has
one
pr
only
for
the
api
changes
this
way
we
can
get
that
one
merged
first,
so
that
we,
then
we
need
to
update
the
external
provisioner.
We
need
to
update
release
tools
and
there's
like
this
chicken
egg
problem,
because
otherwise,
if
we
submit
everything
together,
we
can't
pass
the
I
so
so
we're
trying
to
basically
move
them
separately
and
then
I've
done
some
manual
tests.
Many
upgrade
tests
for
backward
combat
compatibility.
F
A
D
I'm
here
so
there
was
a
metric
pr
that
is
in
progress.
I
have
almost
a
working
period
for
the
api
with
the
change
going
beta,
but
I
am
seeking
some
guidance
from
jordan,
our
team
about
defaulting
logic.
So
when
the
feature
was
alpha,
we,
although
the
the
dock,
says
the
document
says
that
the
default
is
always,
but
we
are
not
doing
that
in
the
part,
spec
or
security
context.
The
default
is
nil,
like
if
you
don't
specify
the
default
is
null
and
the
reasoning
being
like.
D
If
we
did
change
the
default
to
always
when
this
feature
moved
to
beta,
then
all
the
existing
part
spec
has
to
be
updated
and
that
will
cause
unnecessary
churn
because
daemon
set
and
bunch
of
other
controllers
hash
the
part
spec.
So
it's
undesirable
to
to
change,
put
a
change
in
part
spec
and
cause
roll
out
of
all
these
objects.
So
there
was
discussion
with
tim
and
jordan
last
release
when
we
moved
it
to
when
it
was
an
alpha
about
how
to
do
this
and
and
in
alpha.
D
D
G
G
A
D
A
A
C
A
C
C
C
Oh
yeah
for
the.
If
the
two
ephemeral
volumes
items
patrick,
has
sent
out
a
meeting,
invite
to
discuss
the
api
direction
that
we
want
to
go
with
this
in
order
to
be
able
to
move
these
features
to
the
next
phase,
and
I
think
the
meeting
is
he
sent
it
out
to
the
store
six
storage
list.
The
meeting
is
next
monday.
A
So,
if
anyone's
interested
in
this
any
of
these
topics,
please
try
and
attend
that
meeting.
The
invitation
should
be
in
the
sig
storage
kubernetes
group.
So
if
you
are
subscribed
to
that
group,
you
should
have
an
invite
if
you
are
still
unsure.
I
think
it
should
be
on
the
on
our
calendar
as
well,
if
not
just
send
patrick
an
email
and
he
should
be
able
to
get
you
the
invite
as
well
all
right.
Thank
you.
Michelle
for
those
updates.
F
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
Yeah
yeah,
so
so
we've
been
having
weekly
meetings,
tuesday
mornings,
we've
made
a
lot
of
progress,
we've
discussed
several
things
and
basically
had
had
a
lot
of
agreement
about
the
direction
we
want
to.
Take
this.
That's
the
good
news.
The
bad
news
is
I've
created
more
work
for
myself
than
I
had
anticipated,
and
I
certainly
not
all
of
it
is
going
to
be
done
in
this
release.
B
B
I
I
think
it's
still
within
the
realm
of
possibility
to
get
the
the
controller
piece
and
the
crd
for
data
populators
or
volume
populators
in
and
then
to
halt,
to
postpone
all
of
the
work
around
the
actual
library,
implementation
and
sample
populator
implementation
for
later.
So
I
I
think
it's
it's
still
possible
that
we'll
get
the
important
piece
in
120.
A
J
E
J
Is
about
the
credential
mounting
and
we
got
a
very
good
idea
on
that
and
then
we
have
another
issue
about
topology.
I
don't
think
it
will
be
fitting
into
this
current
work,
but
we
want
to
understand
all
the
issues
around
topology
and
affinity.
So
we
had
that
discussion
and
we'll
have
the
discussion
today
in
the
in
the
cozy
meeting
after
this
meeting.
J
A
K
Yeah
we
had
last
update
was
we
had
two
different
pr's
open
once
relax
validation
moved
to
beta
the
second
one
to
include
the
entertainment
test.
Those
two
have
been
consolidated
into
one.
An
initial
round
of
reviews
has
been
completed
and
their
feedback
incorporated.
So
now
it's
just
waiting
on
a
second
round
of
reviews
and
approval.
I
A
A
A
C
K
A
A
G
A
A
A
A
A
F
J
Yeah,
this
is
training
again.
Basically,
we
are
dependent
on
c
advisor
0.38
version
and
they
their
pr
is
blocking
our
pr
right
now.
They
said
that
they
will
they'll
make
a
pr
this
week,
so
there
is
the
likelihood
that
we
may
not
make
it
to
this
release.
That's
the
last
pr
I
submitted
to
remove
the
final
dependencies
on
the
mount
details
in
the
kk
so,
and
I
also
saw
another
pr
for
the
container
d
update,
which
is
updating
the
c
advisor
to
a
sha
number,
which
will
also
work
for
us.
J
A
A
A
A
E
E
So
so,
basically
cubelet
ignores
the
fs
group
that
that
was
specified
in
the
broad
spec,
even
though
the
volume
was
actually
formatted
according
to
like
ext4
fs
step
and
the
gap
that
we
sort
of
found
is
that
the
formatting
information
is
not
actually
communicated
back
to
external
provisional
and
when
cubelet
tries
to
mount
that
volume
it.
So
it
doesn't
know
that
it
was
actually
formatted
and
therefore
it
it
ignores.
The
fs
group.
A
E
B
In
particular,
it's
just
looking
is
the
string
empty
or
not
if,
if
the
fs
type
is
set
to
something,
it
will
try
to
like
count
all
the
files,
but
if
it's,
if
it's
empty
it
skips
that
and
and
then
the
problem
is,
is
that
like?
If
you
leave
it
blank
in
the
in
the
storage
class,
then
it
will
be
pat
and
you
leave
it
blank
in
the
external
provisioner
sidecar?
D
D
We
are
moving
away
from
this
heuristic
actually
and
in
120,
like
christian,
is
working
on
the
feature
where
csi
driver
can
just
explicitly
say
that
okay,
I
need
it's
a
beta,
so
you
can
do
this
if
I
say
that
okay,
I
support
fs
through
policy
to
to
file.
So
even
if
there
is
no
fs
type
in
the
volume,
it
will
still
apply.
Fs2.
B
The
problem
is
those
provisioners
that
sometimes
want
to
set
a
file
system
and
sometimes
don't
want
to
set
a
file
system
or
if
they
have
two
different
file
systems
that
they
may
or
may
not
set.
Then
there's
no,
nothing
you
can
put
in
the
sidecar
command
line
parameters
that
will
always
give
you
the
right
answer
and
I
think
you're
going
to
run
into
the
same
problem
with
the
csi
driver,
crd
fs
group
policy.
C
A
A
D
D
C
C
D
B
D
B
C
B
Yes,
a
combination
of
that
change
and
the
change
to
the
csi
driver
object
that
says
don't
apply.
Fs
groups
for
me
would
allow
these
more
complex,
csi
drivers
to
opt
out
of
cubelet's
current
behavior
and
to
say
I
will
do
it
myself
and
as
long
as
all
of
the
same
information
is
pushed
down,
then
the
csi
plugin
can
just
do
the
right
thing
whatever
that
is
yeah.
So
that's
that's.
C
D
Okay,
I
I
think
yeah
that's
a
separate
concern,
maybe,
but
I
think
we
should
track
and
it's
I
know
like
it
was
to
me
and
finish
trying
to
finish
the
the
gi
I
think
work
that
to
pass
it
on.
The
note
stage
is
not
published
and
as
far
as
I
remember,
but
I
had
a
conflict,
I
could
not
attend.
Jan
told
me
that
there
was
no
major
objection.
It's
just
that
we
needed
to,
but
there
was
not
like
james
who
was
opposed
to
that
adding
gid
as
a
mount
option
was
not
there
in
the
meeting.
D
A
So
do
does
this
summary
accurately
captured
what
we
discussed
so
short-term
mitigation
for
drivers
that
support
multiple
storage
back-ends
set
the
fs
type
in
storage
class
for
drivers
that
support
single
storage
back
end
set
the
fs
type
in
the
csi
driver,
object
or
sorry.
This
should
be
in
the
sidecar.
The
configuration.
A
A
B
No,
no,
that
that's
the
workaround
that
doesn't
work
very
well.
The
the
better
one
is
to
have
have
the
fs
group
stuff
applied
at
node
stage
time,
okay,
which
I
I
guess
I
wasn't
paying
close
enough
potential
when
we
discussed
that.
But
I'm
much
more
interested
in
now
that
I
understand
what
the
point
of
it
is
so.
B
D
B
A
B
A
Okay,
so
effectively,
what
we're
saying
is
kubernetes
doesn't
care
what
the
fs
type
is,
because
we
just
give
the
option
for
fs
driver
for
drivers
to
be
able
to
handle
the
only
reason
that
cubelet
would
care,
which
is
fs
group,
and
if
that's
no
longer
responsibility
of
cubelet,
then
we
don't
really
care
what
the
fs
type
is
on
the
current
side,
then
it
just
becomes
an
interesting
detail.
We
show
in
the
ui,
and
so
that's
the
second
part,
which
is
for
the
nicer
ui,
ensure
the
pb
object.
F
B
A
D
B
C
M
D
Yeah
so
one
of
the
items
that
we
are
trying
to
get
and-
and
I
think
this
will
be
tricky-
is
like
we
decided
to
put
an
on
mount
policy
in
the
thing
that
christian
is
working
on
on
the
fs
group
policy,
and
only
when
it
is
mount
policy,
then
only
the
gi
day
will
be
supplied
to
the
driver,
and
now
I
think
we
are
tilting
towards
pass.
It
always.