added limitations #842
added limitations #842
Conversation
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
| @@ -11,6 +11,9 @@ The following features are considered a Technology Preview and have not been tes | |||
| * {bare_metal_first_ref} | |||
| * NFS Ganesha back end for {rhos_component_storage_file_first_ref} | |||
| * iSCSI, NFS, and FC-based drivers for {block_storage_first_ref} | |||
| * {block_storage} back end for the {image_service_first_ref} | |||
| * NFS back end for the {image_service} | |||
| * Third-party drivers for the {rhos_component_storage_file} | |||
| * The following {compute_service_first_ref} features: | |||
| ** Compute hosts with `/var/lib/nova/instances` on NFS | |||
| ** NUMA aware vswitches | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| ** NUMA aware vswitches | |
| ** NUMA-aware vswitches |
| @@ -11,6 +11,9 @@ The following features are considered a Technology Preview and have not been tes | |||
| * {bare_metal_first_ref} | |||
| * NFS Ganesha back end for {rhos_component_storage_file_first_ref} | |||
| * iSCSI, NFS, and FC-based drivers for {block_storage_first_ref} | |||
| * {block_storage} back end for the {image_service_first_ref} | |||
| * NFS back end for the {image_service} | |||
| * Third-party drivers for the {rhos_component_storage_file} | |||
| * The following {compute_service_first_ref} features: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we need to make these sub- bullet points / nested unordered list?
Could drop the line "The following {compute_service_first_ref} features:"
Or start another list with that line as a lead-in, something like:
"The following {compute_service_first_ref} features are unsupported:"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It means that the following features that only apply to Compute are Tech Preview.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes I can see that, but could start a new list instead. Also if it's only for Compute, does that mean a NUMA-aware switch in an NFV use case might be ok, but not in a Compute use case?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok I'll start a new list. This list means that a numa-aware switch would not work in a Compute use case. I'm not sure about an NFV use case.
| @@ -11,6 +11,9 @@ The following features are considered a Technology Preview and have not been tes | |||
| * {bare_metal_first_ref} | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Adding this comment here because I couldn't add it further up. It's about the previous 2 lines:
"Before you proceed with the adoption, check which features are considered a Technology Preview or are unsupported.
The following features are considered a Technology Preview and have not been tested within the context of the {rhos_long_noacro} adoption:"
I'd drop the "are considered" - it's passive and not very technical IMO.
Also maybe it should be "and are unsupported" instead of "or are unsupported" because usually tech preview = unsupported.
Maybe I wouldn't mention that the features haven't been tested, because if I was a customer I might be thinking "Why are they not tested? Hurry up and test them!"
Maybe something like:
"The following features have a status of Technology Preview and are unsupported in {rhos_long_noacro} production environments:"
Also see about dropping one of those 2 lead in sentences because they are sort of saying the same thing.
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OSPRH-14487