0

I'm setting up a self-managed Kubernetes cluster where I'm limited by the number of choices for the backend storage for Pods.

I should use a remote storage, so that multiple Pods can read/write at the same time, and Pods can get migrated easily to other nodes. Of course the reliability of storage is important.

Due to hardware limitations, Ceph is not an option. GlusterFS is also depreciated.

NFS seems to be my only option. So my question is, how reliable is NFS for using in Kubernetes? Would applications (mostly Java-based) and databases (mysql, postgres) behave abnormally?

Improve this question

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

NFS is a commonly used storage option for Kubernetes, but it is not as reliable as some other options such as persistent volumes or distributed file systems. This is because NFS relies on a single server for storage, which can be a single point of failure. Additionally, NFS can experience performance degradation when handling high volumes of data or a large number of concurrent connections.

Improve this answer

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.