okami101/blog
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases 46 Wiki Activity

proofreading

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Adrien Beaudouin
2023-08-30 17:18:13 +02:00
parent 7ee53261bd
commit 3a0a45edbb
1 changed files with 1 additions and 1 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

2
content/posts/13-a-beautiful-gitops-day-3/index.md
View File

@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ In general `RWO` is more performant, but only one pod can mount it, while `RWX`
`RWO` is a single node volume, and `RWX` is a shared volume between multiple nodes. `RWO` is a single node volume, and `RWX` is a shared volume between multiple nodes.
{{</ alert >}} {{</ alert >}}
`K3s` comes with a built-in `local-path` provisioner, which is the most performant `RWO` solution by directly using local NVMe SSD. But it's not resilient neither scalable. I think it's a good solution for what you consider at no critical data. `K3s` comes with a built-in `local-path` provisioner, which is the most performant `RWO` solution by directly using local NVMe SSD. But it's not resilient neither scalable. I think it's a good solution for what you consider as not critical data.
A dedicated NFS server is a good `RWX` solution, by using [this provisioner](https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/nfs-subdir-external-provisioner). It allows scalability and resiliency with [GlusterFS](https://www.gluster.org/). But it stays a single point of failure in case of network problems, and give of course low IOPS. It's also a separate server to maintain. A dedicated NFS server is a good `RWX` solution, by using [this provisioner](https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/nfs-subdir-external-provisioner). It allows scalability and resiliency with [GlusterFS](https://www.gluster.org/). But it stays a single point of failure in case of network problems, and give of course low IOPS. It's also a separate server to maintain.