Fix storageclass pvc statement

[Affan-7]

This fixes #42176

Here is what I did:

I created two default storage classes. And applied the following manifest file for creating a PVC with no explicit 'storageClassName' attribute.

apiVersion: v1
kind: PersistentVolumeClaim
metadata:
  name: pvc
spec:
  accessModes:
    - ReadWriteOnce
  resources:
    requests:
      storage: 3Gi

The PVC got bound with the newest storageclass(local-storage).

Here is a reference: kubernetes/kubernetes#110559

Admission control plugin "DefaultStorageClass": If more than one StorageClass is designated as default (via the "storageclass.kubernetes.io/is-default-class" annotation), choose the newest one instead of throwing an error.

[netlify]

✅ Pull request preview available for checking

Built without sensitive environment variables

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	84ce0f1
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/kubernetes-io-main-staging/deploys/64c7ceb30146ef0008af4c27
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-42177--kubernetes-io-main-staging.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[sftim]

/sig storage

[Affan-7]

Hi @sftim, can you please review this.

[tengqm]

/approve

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: tengqm

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

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• content/en/OWNERS [tengqm]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[Affan-7]

/auto-cc

[Affan-7]

/approve

Can you add lgtm @tengqm

[tengqm]

@Affan-7 I intentionally left the technical LGTM to others. I'm aware of this behavior difference and the related change, but I do believe a technical LGTM is desirable.

[Nuru]

It may be beyond the expertise (or simply time budget) of the OP to amend this PR as I am requesting, but I believe this page in particular needs significant changes with respect to the DefaultStorageClass admission controller. In particular, it is now enabled by default in all currently supported versions of Kubernetes, so statements such as:

To enable dynamic storage provisioning based on storage class, the cluster administrator needs to enable the DefaultStorageClass admission controller on the API server.

Is misleading at best, because the cluster administrator does not need to do anything to enable the admission controller.

Several other sections documenting the difference between having the DefaultStorageClass admission controller enabled and disabled should be rewritten to reflect the default status of it being enabled.

[sftim]

It may be beyond the expertise (or simply time budget) of the OP to amend this PR as I am requesting, but I believe this page in particular needs significant changes with respect to the DefaultStorageClass admission controller. In particular, it is now enabled by default in all currently supported versions of Kubernetes, so statements such as:

To enable dynamic storage provisioning based on storage class, the cluster administrator needs to enable the DefaultStorageClass admission controller on the API server.

Is misleading at best, because the cluster administrator does not need to do anything to enable the admission controller.

Several other sections documenting the difference between having the DefaultStorageClass admission controller enabled and disabled should be rewritten to reflect the default status of it being enabled.

Would you be willing to open an issue about that shortcoming @Nuru?

[Nuru]

@sftim wrote

Would you be willing to open an issue about that shortcoming @Nuru?

Opened #42413

[sftim]

@Affan-7 if #42551 merges, you can link to the new section about StorageClass defaults (and simplify the concept page about persistent volumes).

[xing-yang]

@RomanBednar @jsafrane Can you verify this? Based on this PR https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/117064/files, it is not always the newest.

[jsafrane]

IMO it will be very rare / impossible that two StorageClasses have the same CreationTimestamp. IMO the sentence is good enough for users.

[RomanBednar]

^^^ Agreed, chances to hit that condition is very low.

[sftim]

based on #42177 (comment)

/lgtm

[k8s-ci-robot]

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: 8a12def215f05a4aee9de39d16ab35639613423c

[sftim]

Oops, this incorrectly marked #42176 as fixed. Sorry about that.