Re: [kubernetes-users] Re: [google-containers] Can two persistent volume claims be bound to the same persistent volume?
You can try the nfs-client provisioner to dynamically create subdirectories on a single NFS server: https://github.com/kubernetes-incubator/external-storage/tree/master/nfs-client On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 9:55 AM 'Tim Hockin' via Kubernetes user discussion and Q wrote: > If you pointed them at the same NFS export (server + path) then it's > expected that they would see each other's changes. You can either > create another export on the server or mount a sub-dir of that export > (e.g. export /home, but mount /home/you vs /home/me) or you can use > k8s' `subPath` field on the pods to mount different subdirs. > On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 9:39 AM Stephen Eaton > wrote: > > > > I tried creating two PV's of 10Gi both pointing at the same NFS of 1TB. > I also create 2 PVCs for the same StorageClass also of 10Gi. > > > > The problem is that when I add a file to on the the PVs the same file is > present on the other PV. > > > > What I would like to be able to do it to create to separate 'partitions' > (or locaigical separation) so that one PV does not share the data of the > other PV - is this possible? > > > > On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 9:52:41 AM UTC+2, Tim Hockin wrote: > >> > >> YOu can create multiple PVs with the same NFS export, as long as that > >> is acceptable to you :) > >> > >> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 12:51 AM, Qian Zhang wrote: > >> > Got it, thanks Tim! > >> > > >> > BTW, is there any best practice to use PV of NFS type? E.g., there is > an NFS > >> > server which has only one export, should admin only create 1 PV for > it? Or > >> > it is also OK to create multiple PVs? > >> > > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > Qian Zhang > >> > > >> > On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 3:32 PM, 'Tim Hockin' via Containers at Google > >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> If your NFS system supports that, that is one way ti could be done, > yes. > >> >> > >> >> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 12:13 AM, Qian Zhang > wrote: > >> >> > I am curious how the storage system behind us does the enforcement, > >> >> > e.g., > >> >> > will we let NFS server know the capacity of PV is 1GB, and NFS > server > >> >> > can > >> >> > guarantee the pod using that PV can not write more than 1GB? > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > Thanks, > >> >> > Qian Zhang > >> >> > > >> >> > On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 3:00 PM, 'Tim Hockin' via Containers at > Google > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Nobody enforces it yet (well, WE don't, but the storage system > behind > >> >> >> us might). It's a way to match user needs (PVC) to available > >> >> >> resources (PV). > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > why does user need to define the PVC's capacity when creating > the > >> >> >> > PVC? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> If the user needs 100GB and I give them a PV with 2 GB, they will > not > >> >> >> be happy. They have to specify how much they nee so we can bind > (or > >> >> >> provision) a PV for them. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 11:54 PM, Qian Zhang > >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> > Yeah, actually I am also a bit confused about the capacity user > >> >> >> > defined > >> >> >> > in > >> >> >> > PV and PVC, who will be responsible for enforcing it? E.g., I > have an > >> >> >> > NFS > >> >> >> > server which has 10GB free, and I create a PV (1GB) and PVC > (1GB), > >> >> >> > and > >> >> >> > create a pod uses that PVC. So in the pod, can I only write 1GB > into > >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> > mounted NFS directory? If so, who enforces it? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > And if a PV can only be used by a single PVC, why does user > need to > >> >> >> > define > >> >> >> > the PVC's capacity when creating the PVC? I think we should not > ask > >> >> >> > user > >> >> >> > to > >> >> >> > define it, i.e., all the capacity of the PV should be used. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Thanks, > >> >> >> > Qian Zhang > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 2:45 PM, 'Tim Hockin' via Containers at > Google > >> >> >> > wrote: > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> A PV uses a single backing medium, but multiple PVs might > share that > >> >> >> >> medium. Consider "thin" block devices which allocate actual > space > >> >> >> >> on > >> >> >> >> demand. You might over-commit your storage system. Consider > NFS > >> >> >> >> which can have multiple exports on the same filesystem. You > might > >> >> >> >> over-commit your NFS server. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Not saying it's a great idea, just that it is possible. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 11:40 PM, Qian Zhang < > zhq5...@gmail.com> > >> >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> >> > Thanks Tim! So a PV can only be used by a single PVC no > matter > >> >> >> >> > what > >> >> >> >> > its > >> >> >> >> > type > >> >> >> >> > is. > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > And can you please clarify a bit about "You can make a PV > that > >> >> >> >> > uses > >> >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> >> > same > >> >> >> >> > backing medium, if the driver allows it"? I do not quite > >> >> >> >> > understand > >> >> >> >> > about > >> >> >> >> >
Re: [kubernetes-users] Re: [google-containers] Can two persistent volume claims be bound to the same persistent volume?
If you pointed them at the same NFS export (server + path) then it's expected that they would see each other's changes. You can either create another export on the server or mount a sub-dir of that export (e.g. export /home, but mount /home/you vs /home/me) or you can use k8s' `subPath` field on the pods to mount different subdirs. On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 9:39 AM Stephen Eaton wrote: > > I tried creating two PV's of 10Gi both pointing at the same NFS of 1TB. I > also create 2 PVCs for the same StorageClass also of 10Gi. > > The problem is that when I add a file to on the the PVs the same file is > present on the other PV. > > What I would like to be able to do it to create to separate 'partitions' (or > locaigical separation) so that one PV does not share the data of the other PV > - is this possible? > > On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 9:52:41 AM UTC+2, Tim Hockin wrote: >> >> YOu can create multiple PVs with the same NFS export, as long as that >> is acceptable to you :) >> >> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 12:51 AM, Qian Zhang wrote: >> > Got it, thanks Tim! >> > >> > BTW, is there any best practice to use PV of NFS type? E.g., there is an >> > NFS >> > server which has only one export, should admin only create 1 PV for it? Or >> > it is also OK to create multiple PVs? >> > >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Qian Zhang >> > >> > On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 3:32 PM, 'Tim Hockin' via Containers at Google >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> If your NFS system supports that, that is one way ti could be done, yes. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 12:13 AM, Qian Zhang wrote: >> >> > I am curious how the storage system behind us does the enforcement, >> >> > e.g., >> >> > will we let NFS server know the capacity of PV is 1GB, and NFS server >> >> > can >> >> > guarantee the pod using that PV can not write more than 1GB? >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Thanks, >> >> > Qian Zhang >> >> > >> >> > On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 3:00 PM, 'Tim Hockin' via Containers at Google >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Nobody enforces it yet (well, WE don't, but the storage system behind >> >> >> us might). It's a way to match user needs (PVC) to available >> >> >> resources (PV). >> >> >> >> >> >> > why does user need to define the PVC's capacity when creating the >> >> >> > PVC? >> >> >> >> >> >> If the user needs 100GB and I give them a PV with 2 GB, they will not >> >> >> be happy. They have to specify how much they nee so we can bind (or >> >> >> provision) a PV for them. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 11:54 PM, Qian Zhang >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> > Yeah, actually I am also a bit confused about the capacity user >> >> >> > defined >> >> >> > in >> >> >> > PV and PVC, who will be responsible for enforcing it? E.g., I have an >> >> >> > NFS >> >> >> > server which has 10GB free, and I create a PV (1GB) and PVC (1GB), >> >> >> > and >> >> >> > create a pod uses that PVC. So in the pod, can I only write 1GB into >> >> >> > the >> >> >> > mounted NFS directory? If so, who enforces it? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > And if a PV can only be used by a single PVC, why does user need to >> >> >> > define >> >> >> > the PVC's capacity when creating the PVC? I think we should not ask >> >> >> > user >> >> >> > to >> >> >> > define it, i.e., all the capacity of the PV should be used. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Thanks, >> >> >> > Qian Zhang >> >> >> > >> >> >> > On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 2:45 PM, 'Tim Hockin' via Containers at Google >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A PV uses a single backing medium, but multiple PVs might share that >> >> >> >> medium. Consider "thin" block devices which allocate actual space >> >> >> >> on >> >> >> >> demand. You might over-commit your storage system. Consider NFS >> >> >> >> which can have multiple exports on the same filesystem. You might >> >> >> >> over-commit your NFS server. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Not saying it's a great idea, just that it is possible. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 11:40 PM, Qian Zhang >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Thanks Tim! So a PV can only be used by a single PVC no matter >> >> >> >> > what >> >> >> >> > its >> >> >> >> > type >> >> >> >> > is. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > And can you please clarify a bit about "You can make a PV that >> >> >> >> > uses >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> > same >> >> >> >> > backing medium, if the driver allows it"? I do not quite >> >> >> >> > understand >> >> >> >> > about >> >> >> >> > it, I think a PV should always use a single backing medium rather >> >> >> >> > than >> >> >> >> > multiple, right? >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Thanks, >> >> >> >> > Qian Zhang >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 2:34 PM, 'Tim Hockin' via Containers at >> >> >> >> > Google >> >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A PersistentVolume (PV) is an atomic abstraction. You can not >> >> >> >> >> subdivide it across multiple claims. You can make a PV that uses >> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> same backing medium,
[kubernetes-users] Re: [google-containers] Can two persistent volume claims be bound to the same persistent volume?
I tried creating two PV's of 10Gi both pointing at the same NFS of 1TB. I also create 2 PVCs for the same StorageClass also of 10Gi. The problem is that when I add a file to on the the PVs the same file is present on the other PV. What I would like to be able to do it to create to separate 'partitions' (or locaigical separation) so that one PV does not share the data of the other PV - is this possible? On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 9:52:41 AM UTC+2, Tim Hockin wrote: > > YOu can create multiple PVs with the same NFS export, as long as that > is acceptable to you :) > > On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 12:51 AM, Qian Zhang > wrote: > > Got it, thanks Tim! > > > > BTW, is there any best practice to use PV of NFS type? E.g., there is an > NFS > > server which has only one export, should admin only create 1 PV for it? > Or > > it is also OK to create multiple PVs? > > > > > > Thanks, > > Qian Zhang > > > > On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 3:32 PM, 'Tim Hockin' via Containers at Google > > > wrote: > >> > >> If your NFS system supports that, that is one way ti could be done, > yes. > >> > >> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 12:13 AM, Qian Zhang > wrote: > >> > I am curious how the storage system behind us does the enforcement, > >> > e.g., > >> > will we let NFS server know the capacity of PV is 1GB, and NFS server > >> > can > >> > guarantee the pod using that PV can not write more than 1GB? > >> > > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > Qian Zhang > >> > > >> > On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 3:00 PM, 'Tim Hockin' via Containers at Google > >> > > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Nobody enforces it yet (well, WE don't, but the storage system > behind > >> >> us might). It's a way to match user needs (PVC) to available > >> >> resources (PV). > >> >> > >> >> > why does user need to define the PVC's capacity when creating the > >> >> > PVC? > >> >> > >> >> If the user needs 100GB and I give them a PV with 2 GB, they will > not > >> >> be happy. They have to specify how much they nee so we can bind (or > >> >> provision) a PV for them. > >> >> > >> >> On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 11:54 PM, Qian Zhang > > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > Yeah, actually I am also a bit confused about the capacity user > >> >> > defined > >> >> > in > >> >> > PV and PVC, who will be responsible for enforcing it? E.g., I have > an > >> >> > NFS > >> >> > server which has 10GB free, and I create a PV (1GB) and PVC (1GB), > >> >> > and > >> >> > create a pod uses that PVC. So in the pod, can I only write 1GB > into > >> >> > the > >> >> > mounted NFS directory? If so, who enforces it? > >> >> > > >> >> > And if a PV can only be used by a single PVC, why does user need > to > >> >> > define > >> >> > the PVC's capacity when creating the PVC? I think we should not > ask > >> >> > user > >> >> > to > >> >> > define it, i.e., all the capacity of the PV should be used. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > Thanks, > >> >> > Qian Zhang > >> >> > > >> >> > On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 2:45 PM, 'Tim Hockin' via Containers at > Google > >> >> > > wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> A PV uses a single backing medium, but multiple PVs might share > that > >> >> >> medium. Consider "thin" block devices which allocate actual > space > >> >> >> on > >> >> >> demand. You might over-commit your storage system. Consider NFS > >> >> >> which can have multiple exports on the same filesystem. You > might > >> >> >> over-commit your NFS server. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Not saying it's a great idea, just that it is possible. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 11:40 PM, Qian Zhang > > >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> > Thanks Tim! So a PV can only be used by a single PVC no matter > >> >> >> > what > >> >> >> > its > >> >> >> > type > >> >> >> > is. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > And can you please clarify a bit about "You can make a PV that > >> >> >> > uses > >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> > same > >> >> >> > backing medium, if the driver allows it"? I do not quite > >> >> >> > understand > >> >> >> > about > >> >> >> > it, I think a PV should always use a single backing medium > rather > >> >> >> > than > >> >> >> > multiple, right? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Thanks, > >> >> >> > Qian Zhang > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 2:34 PM, 'Tim Hockin' via Containers at > >> >> >> > Google > >> >> >> > > wrote: > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> A PersistentVolume (PV) is an atomic abstraction. You can not > >> >> >> >> subdivide it across multiple claims. You can make a PV that > uses > >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> same backing medium, if the driver allows it. E.g. consider > NFS. > >> >> >> >> If > >> >> >> >> your NFS server has 150 GB free, nothing stops you from making > 2 > >> >> >> >> PVs > >> >> >> >> each of size 100GB. We can't validate that. It might be bad > for > >> >> >> >> your > >> >> >> >> users, but that is a decision you have to make as a cluster > >> >> >> >>
