Comment 5 for bug 1173037

Hey Shausy,

Glad to hear those were the issues. With respect to your questions:

1. Why this is hard-coded with respective storage arrays name

When we initially did capabilities and reporting the backend-name for the driver was static and hard coded (either by a string or using the class name). When we added multi-backend support and enhanced it to allow multiple backends of same type we added the capability to specify the backend name to use. Unfortunately some drivers are more actively maintained than others, and this one slipped through the cracks and was not updated.

2. I'm referring bk-block-storage-adminguide-trunk.pdf" for multi backend storageconfiguration, its not mentioned like particular name has to be mention for volume backend

So there are two use cases here which I think introduces some confusion. In the docs, the first two LVM configurations are intended to just have seemless additional VG's to be used in scheduling. In order to specify the back-end via type (and therefore name) you MUST specify a unique back-end name as in LVM-3.

3.Can you please let me know where this has been documented
We'll need to clear up the documentation to be more explicit

I'll modify this bug to actually specify the root cause of the LHN driver, and we'll get that fixed up. We should also log a bug against docs to improve/clarify how the multi-backend stuff works.