OCPBUGS-10640-13: 4.13 Added clarification point to disk partition BM…

[dfitzmau]

SEE #67707 FOR SME APPROVAL.

OCPBUGS-10640

Version(s):
4.13

For 4.13 and 4.12, ensure you do not remove:

For disk sizes larger than 100GB, and especially disk sizes larger than 1TB, create a separate /var partition. See "Creating a separate /var partition" and this link:https://access.redhat.com/solutions/5587281[Red Hat Knowledgebase article] for more information.

Link to docs preview:
Disk partioning

• SME has approved this change.
• QE has approved this change.

Additional information:

[openshift-ci-robot]

@dfitzmau: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-10640, which is invalid:

• expected the bug to be in one of the following states: NEW, ASSIGNED, POST, but it is ON_QA instead
• expected Jira Issue OCPBUGS-10640 to depend on a bug in one of the following states: VERIFIED, RELEASE PENDING, CLOSED (ERRATA), CLOSED (CURRENT RELEASE), CLOSED (DONE), CLOSED (DONE-ERRATA), but no dependents were found

Comment /jira refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Jira bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker.

In response to this:

… doc

Version(s):

Issue:

Link to docs preview:

QE review:

• QE has approved this change.

Additional information:

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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[ocpdocs-previewbot]

🤖 Tue Mar 19 11:35:39 - Prow CI generated the docs preview:
https://73361--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app

[openshift-ci]

@dfitzmau: all tests passed!

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

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.

[dfitzmau]

/label peer-review-needed

[dfitzmau]

/remove-label peer-review-needed

[gpei]

/lgtm

[dfitzmau]

/label peer-review-needed

[openshift-ci-robot]

@dfitzmau: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-10640, which is invalid:

• expected the bug to be in one of the following states: NEW, ASSIGNED, POST, but it is Verified instead
• expected Jira Issue OCPBUGS-10640 to depend on a bug in one of the following states: VERIFIED, RELEASE PENDING, CLOSED (ERRATA), CLOSED (CURRENT RELEASE), CLOSED (DONE), CLOSED (DONE-ERRATA), but no dependents were found

Comment /jira refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Jira bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

In response to this:

SEE #67707 FOR SME APPROVAL.

OCPBUGS-10640

Version(s):
4.13

For 4.13 and 4.12, ensure you do not remove:

For disk sizes larger than 100GB, and especially disk sizes larger than 1TB, create a separate /var partition. See "Creating a separate /var partition" and this link:https://access.redhat.com/solutions/5587281[Red Hat Knowledgebase article] for more information.

Link to docs preview:
Disk partioning

• SME has approved this change.
• QE has approved this change.

Additional information:

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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[bburt-rh]

Looks good overall. Added a few nitpicks and some other changes for you to consider. Thanks, @dfitzmau!

[bburt-rh]

Suggested change

	The disk partitions are created on {product-title} cluster nodes during the {op-system-first} installation. Each {op-system} node of a particular architecture uses the same partition layout, unless the default partitioning configuration is overridden.
	Disk partitions are created on {product-title} cluster nodes during the {op-system-first} installation. Each {op-system} node of a particular architecture uses the same partition layout, unless you override the default partitioning configuration.

• Omit definite article. It doesn't look you're referring back to specific partitions here.
• Avoid passive voice.

[bburt-rh]

Suggested change

	The use of a custom partition scheme on your node could result in {product-title} not monitoring or alerting on some node partitions. If you are overriding the default partitioning, see link:https://access.redhat.com/articles/4766521[Understanding OpenShift File System Monitoring (eviction conditions)] for more information about how {product-title} monitors your host file systems.
	The use of a custom partition scheme on your node might result in {product-title} not monitoring or alerting on some node partitions. If you are overriding the default partitioning, see link:https://access.redhat.com/articles/4766521[Understanding OpenShift File System Monitoring (eviction conditions)] for more information about how {product-title} monitors your host file systems.

Per the ISG, don't use could "in the present tense to mean might or can".

[bburt-rh]

Suggested change

	You might want to add a separate storage partition for your containers and container images. For example, by mounting `/var/lib/containers` in a separate partition, the kubelet separately monitor `/var/lib/containers` as the `imagefs` directory and the root file system as the `nodefs` directory.
	[In situations such as...], you might want to add a separate storage partition for your containers and container images. For example, by mounting `/var/lib/containers` in a separate partition, the kubelet separately monitors `/var/lib/containers` as the `imagefs` directory and the root file system as the `nodefs` directory.

• I'd suggest adding a clause at the beginning for this sentence to add clarification about when a user might want to add a separate storage partition. I think it'd be good for users to know when doing so would be useful.
• Fix subject-verb disagreement typo.

[bburt-rh]

Suggested change

	If you resized your disk size to host a larger file system, consider creating a separate `/var/lib/containers` partition. This is important for a disk formatted to `xfs`, where a high number of allocation groups might cause CPU time issues.
	If you have resized your disk size to host a larger file system, consider creating a separate `/var/lib/containers` partition. This is important for a disk formatted to `xfs`, where a high number of allocation groups might cause CPU time issues.

• Adding a present participle indicates more clearly that you're talking about a present situation, imo. WDYT?
• Per the ISG avoid ambiguous pronoun references; what does "This" refer to? Try to rephrase the last sentence to avoid a "this is" construction at all (see the ISG word usage guidance for "there is, there are" for an example.

[dfitzmau]

Thanks, @bburt-rh . I'll aim to get this PR merged and then address yoru feedback so that all branches have similar changes.

[dfitzmau]

/label merge-review-needed

[kcarmichael08]

I see that you will be addressing peer review comments after merge so I will go ahead and merge.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@dfitzmau: Jira Issue OCPBUGS-10640 is in an unrecognized state (Release Pending) and will not be moved to the MODIFIED state.

In response to this:

SEE #67707 FOR SME APPROVAL.

OCPBUGS-10640

Version(s):
4.13

For 4.13 and 4.12, ensure you do not remove:

For disk sizes larger than 100GB, and especially disk sizes larger than 1TB, create a separate /var partition. See "Creating a separate /var partition" and this link:https://access.redhat.com/solutions/5587281[Red Hat Knowledgebase article] for more information.

Link to docs preview:
Disk partioning

• SME has approved this change.
• QE has approved this change.

Additional information:

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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.