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

Azure PD (Managed/Blob) #46360

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jul 14, 2017

Conversation

@khenidak
Contributor

khenidak commented May 24, 2017

This is exactly the same code as this PR. It has a clean set of generated items. We created a separate PR to accelerate the accept/merge the PR

CC @colemickens
CC @brendandburns

What this PR does / why we need it:

  1. Adds K8S support for Azure Managed Disks.
  2. Adds support for dedicated blob disks (1:1 to storage account) in addition to shared blob disks (n:1 to storage account).
  3. Automatically manages the underlying storage accounts. New storage accounts are created at 50% utilization. Max is 100 disks, 60 disks per storage account.
  4. Addresses the current issues with Blob Disks:
    ..* Significantly faster attach process. Disks are now usually available for pods on nodes under 30 sec if formatted, under a min if not formatted.
    ..* Adds support to move disks between nodes.
    ..* Adds consistent attach/detach behavior, checks if the disk is leased/attached on a different node before attempting to attach to target nodes.
    ..* Fixes a random hang behavior on Azure VMs during mount/format (for both blob + managed disks).
    ..* Fixes a potential conflict by avoiding the use of disk names for mount paths. The new plugin uses hashed disk uri for mount path.

The existing AzureDisk is used as is. Additional "kind" property was added allowing the user to decide if the pd will be shared, dedicated or managed (Azure Managed Disks are used).

Due to the change in mounting paths, existing PDs need to be recreated as PV or PVCs on the new plugin.

@k8s-ci-robot

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@k8s-ci-robot

k8s-ci-robot May 24, 2017

Contributor

Hi @khenidak. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with @k8s-bot ok to test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

Contributor

k8s-ci-robot commented May 24, 2017

Hi @khenidak. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with @k8s-bot ok to test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

@roberthbailey

I've only reviewed the code in the cloudprovider directory. The majority of the changes are in the volume/azure_dd package, so I'll defer to @ brendandburns and @rootfs to review and approve those changes.

@roberthbailey

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@roberthbailey

roberthbailey May 24, 2017

Member

/approve

Member

roberthbailey commented May 24, 2017

/approve

@rootfs

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@rootfs

rootfs May 24, 2017

Member

@k8s-bot ok to test

Member

rootfs commented May 24, 2017

@k8s-bot ok to test

@rootfs

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@rootfs

rootfs May 24, 2017

Member

@khenidak This is a large refactoring, hard to review.

Please reuse existing code and interface and not shuffle/copy them around. If there existing interface not working for you, address the limitation in the interface.

Member

rootfs commented May 24, 2017

@khenidak This is a large refactoring, hard to review.

Please reuse existing code and interface and not shuffle/copy them around. If there existing interface not working for you, address the limitation in the interface.

@thockin

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@thockin

thockin May 24, 2017

Member

/approve

This is not a code review

Member

thockin commented May 24, 2017

/approve

This is not a code review

@khenidak

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@khenidak

khenidak May 31, 2017

Contributor

@rootfs

  1. Moved the disk controllers to Azure Cloud as requested.
  2. re REST vs SDK - We will move to the SDK once we test against the specific requirements for plugin
  3. Added few unit tests where possible.
Contributor

khenidak commented May 31, 2017

@rootfs

  1. Moved the disk controllers to Azure Cloud as requested.
  2. re REST vs SDK - We will move to the SDK once we test against the specific requirements for plugin
  3. Added few unit tests where possible.
Show outdated Hide outdated pkg/volume/azure_dd/common.go
Show outdated Hide outdated pkg/cloudprovider/providers/azure/blobDiskController.go
Show outdated Hide outdated pkg/volume/azure_dd/provisioner.go
Show outdated Hide outdated pkg/volume/azure_dd/provisioner.go
Show outdated Hide outdated pkg/volume/azure_dd/provisioner.go
Show outdated Hide outdated pkg/volume/azure_dd/common.go
Show outdated Hide outdated pkg/volume/azure_dd/mounter.go
@@ -1,145 +0,0 @@
/*

This comment has been minimized.

@rootfs

rootfs May 31, 2017

Member

keep it as we are going to refactor disk utilities among plugins.

@rootfs

rootfs May 31, 2017

Member

keep it as we are going to refactor disk utilities among plugins.

This comment has been minimized.

@khenidak

khenidak Jun 1, 2017

Contributor

this has moved into the common file of the disk controllers. Since this only needed by Blob Disk + Managed Disk (and will always be, since any block device based disks will always use AzureDiskVolumeSource type with the addition of Kind parameter) also they have nothing to do with "vhd" per-se

@khenidak

khenidak Jun 1, 2017

Contributor

this has moved into the common file of the disk controllers. Since this only needed by Blob Disk + Managed Disk (and will always be, since any block device based disks will always use AzureDiskVolumeSource type with the addition of Kind parameter) also they have nothing to do with "vhd" per-se

Show outdated Hide outdated pkg/volume/azure_dd/mounter.go
Show outdated Hide outdated pkg/volume/azure_dd/mounter.go
@rootfs

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@rootfs

rootfs May 31, 2017

Member

@khenidak there are many regressions when you remove existing azure_dd.go and decide to withdraw support for certain provsioning parameters.

In existing azure_dd.go, you'll find newly added functions such as SupportsMountOption and SupportsBulkVolumeVerification. Even in functions you did copy from there, the function signature changes.

As we are approaching code freeze, extensive refactoring must be carefully evaluated.

Member

rootfs commented May 31, 2017

@khenidak there are many regressions when you remove existing azure_dd.go and decide to withdraw support for certain provsioning parameters.

In existing azure_dd.go, you'll find newly added functions such as SupportsMountOption and SupportsBulkVolumeVerification. Even in functions you did copy from there, the function signature changes.

As we are approaching code freeze, extensive refactoring must be carefully evaluated.

@rootfs

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@rootfs
Member

rootfs commented May 31, 2017

@khenidak

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@khenidak

khenidak Jun 1, 2017

Contributor

Support bulk verification and support mount options are there in this PR for a while now including passing the mount options to the mounter during mount. as for signature change if you are referring to referring to UnixxxxID type defs then these have also been included.

I went back and verified that this PR includes all the "bulk" changes that happened in volume. including one related to skipping TearDownAt call if the path does not exist (just updated the PR with it).

Contributor

khenidak commented Jun 1, 2017

Support bulk verification and support mount options are there in this PR for a while now including passing the mount options to the mounter during mount. as for signature change if you are referring to referring to UnixxxxID type defs then these have also been included.

I went back and verified that this PR includes all the "bulk" changes that happened in volume. including one related to skipping TearDownAt call if the path does not exist (just updated the PR with it).

@rootfs

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@rootfs

rootfs Jun 1, 2017

Member

@khenidak address these concerns and ping me or other members from @kubernetes/sig-storage-pr-reviews when you are done

Make CI test pass.

None of the CI tests have passed yet. Run hach/verify-all.sh

Unit test new functions

Especially those in raw HTTP, there are many uncaptured errors.

Refactoring:

  • make sure existing methods in azure_dd.go are not lost
  • Address mount utility related in issues, if any, in pkg/util/mount
  • Keep vhd_util.go and its unit test

Compatibility

  • We need to support location parameter in Provision(). Provisioner doesn't always run in the same region as compute instance,
  • Don't withdraw support for parameters without a proper notice or documentation.

Raw HTTP:

  • If you continue raw HTTP, handle errors and malformed json.
  • Make sure the API version works for all azure regions that are currently supported in existing code.
  • Don't use hardcoded azure endpoints in raw HTTP, they don't work in every azure region.
    I am not an expert on Azure sdk, cc @ahmetb @colemickens

Address review comments from @brendandburns in #41950

cc @jdumars

Member

rootfs commented Jun 1, 2017

@khenidak address these concerns and ping me or other members from @kubernetes/sig-storage-pr-reviews when you are done

Make CI test pass.

None of the CI tests have passed yet. Run hach/verify-all.sh

Unit test new functions

Especially those in raw HTTP, there are many uncaptured errors.

Refactoring:

  • make sure existing methods in azure_dd.go are not lost
  • Address mount utility related in issues, if any, in pkg/util/mount
  • Keep vhd_util.go and its unit test

Compatibility

  • We need to support location parameter in Provision(). Provisioner doesn't always run in the same region as compute instance,
  • Don't withdraw support for parameters without a proper notice or documentation.

Raw HTTP:

  • If you continue raw HTTP, handle errors and malformed json.
  • Make sure the API version works for all azure regions that are currently supported in existing code.
  • Don't use hardcoded azure endpoints in raw HTTP, they don't work in every azure region.
    I am not an expert on Azure sdk, cc @ahmetb @colemickens

Address review comments from @brendandburns in #41950

cc @jdumars

@saad-ali

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@saad-ali

saad-ali Jun 1, 2017

Member

@rootfs @khenidak FYI, code freeze for 1.7 is at 6 PM PT today (about 1 hour away). For this to get into 1.7.0, it must be LGTM'd before then.

Member

saad-ali commented Jun 1, 2017

@rootfs @khenidak FYI, code freeze for 1.7 is at 6 PM PT today (about 1 hour away). For this to get into 1.7.0, it must be LGTM'd before then.

@mikedanese

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mikedanese

mikedanese Jun 4, 2017

Member

Please rebase instead of including merge commits in your PR.

Member

mikedanese commented Jun 4, 2017

Please rebase instead of including merge commits in your PR.

@nmakhotkin

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@nmakhotkin

nmakhotkin Jun 5, 2017

Hi!

Recently I tried to create my own k8s cluster on azure (v1.6.2) not using azure container engine but using my own install tools (some code written in Go and custom-data scripts in bash). Cluster runs successfully except mounting and attaching volumes: controller manager tries to attach unmanaged azure disk (explicit blob) to my VMs with managed disks and then failed: no disks are attached eventually.

Do I understand correctly that this PR will fix this problem and disks will be attached as managed disks to VMs with managed disks?

nmakhotkin commented Jun 5, 2017

Hi!

Recently I tried to create my own k8s cluster on azure (v1.6.2) not using azure container engine but using my own install tools (some code written in Go and custom-data scripts in bash). Cluster runs successfully except mounting and attaching volumes: controller manager tries to attach unmanaged azure disk (explicit blob) to my VMs with managed disks and then failed: no disks are attached eventually.

Do I understand correctly that this PR will fix this problem and disks will be attached as managed disks to VMs with managed disks?

@andrey-moor

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@andrey-moor

andrey-moor Jun 7, 2017

Is it going to be part of 1.7?

andrey-moor commented Jun 7, 2017

Is it going to be part of 1.7?

@jdumars

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jdumars

jdumars Jun 8, 2017

Member

@andrey-moor we're going to break this work down into more consumable chunks and target 1.8, as well as cherry picks to prior versions. There are a lot of moving parts here.

Member

jdumars commented Jun 8, 2017

@andrey-moor we're going to break this work down into more consumable chunks and target 1.8, as well as cherry picks to prior versions. There are a lot of moving parts here.

@jdumars

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jdumars

jdumars Jun 8, 2017

Member

@nmakhotkin that is the intent, but please watch future PRs for how the work evolves. I'll make sure any future work references this PR so it's easy to tie all the pieces together.

Member

jdumars commented Jun 8, 2017

@nmakhotkin that is the intent, but please watch future PRs for how the work evolves. I'll make sure any future work references this PR so it's easy to tie all the pieces together.

@nmakhotkin

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@nmakhotkin

nmakhotkin commented Jun 8, 2017

@jdumars thanks!

@andyzhangx

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@andyzhangx

andyzhangx Jun 9, 2017

Member

@nmakhotkin In your case, you could only attach blob disks in your own created k8s cluster with this PR.
Only kubernetes cluster with managed os disk could attach managed data disks with this PR.
You could create k8s cluster with managed disk using following acs-engine template:
https://github.com/Azure/acs-engine/blob/master/examples/disks-managed/kubernetes-vmas.json

Member

andyzhangx commented Jun 9, 2017

@nmakhotkin In your case, you could only attach blob disks in your own created k8s cluster with this PR.
Only kubernetes cluster with managed os disk could attach managed data disks with this PR.
You could create k8s cluster with managed disk using following acs-engine template:
https://github.com/Azure/acs-engine/blob/master/examples/disks-managed/kubernetes-vmas.json

@nmakhotkin

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@nmakhotkin

nmakhotkin Jun 9, 2017

@andyzhangx yes I already have the k8s cluster with VMs with managed OS disks. That is, without this PR k8s always tries to attach blob-based disk to VM and then fails.

nmakhotkin commented Jun 9, 2017

@andyzhangx yes I already have the k8s cluster with VMs with managed OS disks. That is, without this PR k8s always tries to attach blob-based disk to VM and then fails.

@brendandburns

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@brendandburns

brendandburns Jul 12, 2017

Contributor

@andyzhangx can you rebase and squash, then I think we can merge...

Contributor

brendandburns commented Jul 12, 2017

@andyzhangx can you rebase and squash, then I think we can merge...

@k8s-ci-robot

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@k8s-ci-robot

k8s-ci-robot Jul 13, 2017

Contributor

Thanks for your pull request. Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA).

📝 Please follow instructions at https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/wiki/CLA-FAQ to sign the CLA.

It may take a couple minutes for the CLA signature to be fully registered; after that, please reply here with a new comment and we'll verify. Thanks.


Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

Contributor

k8s-ci-robot commented Jul 13, 2017

Thanks for your pull request. Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA).

📝 Please follow instructions at https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/wiki/CLA-FAQ to sign the CLA.

It may take a couple minutes for the CLA signature to be fully registered; after that, please reply here with a new comment and we'll verify. Thanks.


Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

@brendandburns

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@brendandburns

brendandburns Jul 13, 2017

Contributor

@andyzhangx Looks like there are some govet errors:

pkg/cloudprovider/providers/azure/azure_blobDiskController.go:612: arg err for printf verb %s of wrong type: <-chan error

And the underscore flag detector is also tripping:

I0713 13:20:30.188] Verifying hack/make-rules/../../hack/verify-flags-underscore.py
I0713 13:20:33.554] Found a flag declared with an _ but which is not explicitly listed as a valid flag name in hack/verify-flags/excluded-flags.txt
I0713 13:20:33.554] Are you certain this flag should not have been declared with an - instead?
I0713 13:20:33.554] Premium_LRS

I think that file excluded-flags.txt might be case sensitive?

Contributor

brendandburns commented Jul 13, 2017

@andyzhangx Looks like there are some govet errors:

pkg/cloudprovider/providers/azure/azure_blobDiskController.go:612: arg err for printf verb %s of wrong type: <-chan error

And the underscore flag detector is also tripping:

I0713 13:20:30.188] Verifying hack/make-rules/../../hack/verify-flags-underscore.py
I0713 13:20:33.554] Found a flag declared with an _ but which is not explicitly listed as a valid flag name in hack/verify-flags/excluded-flags.txt
I0713 13:20:33.554] Are you certain this flag should not have been declared with an - instead?
I0713 13:20:33.554] Premium_LRS

I think that file excluded-flags.txt might be case sensitive?

@k8s-ci-robot

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@k8s-ci-robot

k8s-ci-robot Jul 14, 2017

Contributor

@khenidak: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun them all:

Test name Commit Details Rerun command
pull-kubernetes-cross 1ad55b5 link @k8s-bot pull-kubernetes-cross test this

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

Contributor

k8s-ci-robot commented Jul 14, 2017

@khenidak: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun them all:

Test name Commit Details Rerun command
pull-kubernetes-cross 1ad55b5 link @k8s-bot pull-kubernetes-cross test this

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

@karataliu

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@karataliu

karataliu Jul 14, 2017

Contributor

/retest

Contributor

karataliu commented Jul 14, 2017

/retest

@karataliu

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@karataliu

karataliu Jul 14, 2017

Contributor

@brendandburns Thanks for reviewing. I've got the test fix commit karataliu@3ed5502 verified, and it has been squashed into the final single commit 677e593 here.

Contributor

karataliu commented Jul 14, 2017

@brendandburns Thanks for reviewing. I've got the test fix commit karataliu@3ed5502 verified, and it has been squashed into the final single commit 677e593 here.

@brendandburns

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@brendandburns

brendandburns Jul 14, 2017

Contributor

/lgtm

Contributor

brendandburns commented Jul 14, 2017

/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm label Jul 14, 2017

@brendandburns

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@brendandburns

brendandburns Jul 14, 2017

Contributor

/approve no-issue

Contributor

brendandburns commented Jul 14, 2017

/approve no-issue

@k8s-merge-robot

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@k8s-merge-robot

k8s-merge-robot Jul 14, 2017

Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: brendandburns, khenidak, roberthbailey, thockin

Associated issue requirement bypassed by: brendandburns

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these OWNERS Files:
  • OWNERS [brendandburns,thockin]

You can indicate your approval by writing /approve in a comment
You can cancel your approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

Contributor

k8s-merge-robot commented Jul 14, 2017

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: brendandburns, khenidak, roberthbailey, thockin

Associated issue requirement bypassed by: brendandburns

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these OWNERS Files:
  • OWNERS [brendandburns,thockin]

You can indicate your approval by writing /approve in a comment
You can cancel your approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@k8s-merge-robot

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@k8s-merge-robot

k8s-merge-robot Jul 14, 2017

Contributor

Automatic merge from submit-queue

Contributor

k8s-merge-robot commented Jul 14, 2017

Automatic merge from submit-queue

@k8s-merge-robot k8s-merge-robot merged commit 9e97b52 into kubernetes:master Jul 14, 2017

9 of 10 checks passed

Submit Queue Required Github CI test is not green: pull-kubernetes-verify
Details
cla/linuxfoundation andyzhangx authorized
Details
pull-kubernetes-bazel Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce-etcd3 Jenkins job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-e2e-kops-aws Jenkins job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-federation-e2e-gce Jenkins job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-kubemark-e2e-gce Jenkins job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-node-e2e Jenkins job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-unit Jenkins job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-verify Jenkins job succeeded.
Details
@k8s-cherrypick-bot

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@k8s-cherrypick-bot

k8s-cherrypick-bot Jul 17, 2017

Removing label cherrypick-candidate because no release milestone was set. This is an invalid state and thus this PR is not being considered for cherry-pick to any release branch. Please add an appropriate release milestone and then re-add the label.

k8s-cherrypick-bot commented Jul 17, 2017

Removing label cherrypick-candidate because no release milestone was set. This is an invalid state and thus this PR is not being considered for cherry-pick to any release branch. Please add an appropriate release milestone and then re-add the label.

@wojtek-t wojtek-t added this to the v1.7 milestone Jul 18, 2017

@brendandburns brendandburns modified the milestones: v1.8, v1.7 Jul 18, 2017

brendandburns added a commit to seanknox/kubernetes that referenced this pull request Jul 18, 2017

k8s-merge-robot added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 19, 2017

Merge pull request #49056 from seanknox/automated-cherry-pick-of-#46360
…-upstream-release-1.7

Automatic merge from submit-queue

Automated cherry pick of #46360 upstream release 1.7

Cherry pick of #46360 on release-1.7.

#46360: Azure PD (Managed/Blob)
@andyzhangx

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@andyzhangx

andyzhangx Jul 26, 2017

Member

Hi @nmakhotkin , the code is already in 1.7.2, let me know if you have any question.

Member

andyzhangx commented Jul 26, 2017

Hi @nmakhotkin , the code is already in 1.7.2, let me know if you have any question.

@nmakhotkin

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@nmakhotkin

nmakhotkin Jul 26, 2017

@andyzhangx thanks! I'll try it.

nmakhotkin commented Jul 26, 2017

@andyzhangx thanks! I'll try it.

@k8s-cherrypick-bot

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@k8s-cherrypick-bot

k8s-cherrypick-bot Jul 31, 2017

Commit found in the "release-1.8" branch appears to be this PR. Removing the "cherrypick-candidate" label. If this is an error find help to get your PR picked.

k8s-cherrypick-bot commented Jul 31, 2017

Commit found in the "release-1.8" branch appears to be this PR. Removing the "cherrypick-candidate" label. If this is an error find help to get your PR picked.

@jdumars

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jdumars

jdumars Aug 15, 2017

Member

Release Note:

Adds Kubernetes support for Azure Managed Disks, support for dedicated blob disks (1:1 to storage account) in addition to shared blob disks (n:1 to storage account), and automatically manages the underlying storage accounts. New storage accounts are created at 50% utilization. Max is 100 disks, 60 disks per storage account. Due to the change in mounting paths, existing PDs need to be recreated as either PV or PVCs with the new plugin.

Member

jdumars commented Aug 15, 2017

Release Note:

Adds Kubernetes support for Azure Managed Disks, support for dedicated blob disks (1:1 to storage account) in addition to shared blob disks (n:1 to storage account), and automatically manages the underlying storage accounts. New storage accounts are created at 50% utilization. Max is 100 disks, 60 disks per storage account. Due to the change in mounting paths, existing PDs need to be recreated as either PV or PVCs with the new plugin.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment