3 ms·

> We have all databases in k8s, with physical volumes backed by an NFS-connected storage that's sitting in the same rack. I was searching about this yesterday,

> We have all databases in k8s, with physical volumes backed by an NFS-connected storage that's sitting in the same rack. I was searching about this yesterday, how is your performance running a database in NFS? If your entire db can fit into the RAM cache it's probably fine, but when you have to do heavy IO is what I worry about with NFS.

caleblloyd 7y ago
I think it depends on your NFS. A storage appliance with NFS hardware offload will work much better than a software NFS. Personally with bare metal database I'd try to do fibre channel if supported, then iscsi. Would only dabble with NFS if it had hardware offload, but even still I think block storage would have better iops.
- majewsky 7y ago
  AFAIK the reason for using NFS is that it's supported in k8s out of the box. I don't recall any performance issues for the things that we're doing. When we had database issues, it was the usual stuff: missing indexes, suboptimal config settings etc.
- pm7 7y ago
  Could you explain what do you mean by "NFS hardware offload"? Google search points mostly to VMWare-specific "VAAI NAS framework", which doesn't seem to be useful in case of database over NFS.
  - caleblloyd 7y ago
    Some storage appliances have special hardware to accelerate NFS operations. Those may be able to come close to the same performance as a block storage device. The other option with NFS is running it in software such as a NFS server on Linux configured with /etc/exports and backing the data to a block storage device. This is CPU intensive and would be much slower under load.