3 ms·
(replying to freedomben): NFS has worked fairly well for persistent file storage that doesn't require high performance for reads/writes (e.g. good for media sto
by geerlingguy 7y ago
(replying to freedomben): NFS has worked fairly well for persistent file storage that doesn't require high performance for reads/writes (e.g. good for media storage for a website with a CDN fronting a lot of traffic, good for some kinds of other data storage). It would be a terrible solution for things like database storage or other high-performance needs (clustering and separate PVs with high IOPS storage would be better here).
- lazyier 7y agoIt's good to have multiple options if you want to host databases in the cluster. For example you could use NFS for 90% of the storage needs for logging and sharing files between pods. Then use local storage, FCOE, or iSCSI-backed PVs for databases. If you are doing bare hardware and your requirements for latency are not too stringent then not hosting databases in the cluster is also a good approach. Just used dedicated systems. If you can get state out of the cluster then that makes things easier. All of this depends on a huge number of other factors, of course.