Hello @theit8514

You are actually spot on ^^

I did look in my exports file which was like so :/mnt/DiskArray 192.168.0.16(rw) 192.168.0.65(rw)

I added a localhost line in case: /mnt/DiskArray 127.0.0.1(rw) 192.168.0.16(rw) 192.168.0.65(rw)

It didn’t solve the problem. I went to investigate with the mount command:

• Will mount on 192.168.0.65: mount -t nfs 192.168.0.55:/mnt/DiskArray/mystuff/ /tmp/test

• Will NOT mount on 192.168.0.55 (NAS): mount -t nfs 192.168.0.55:/mnt/DiskArray/mystuff/ /tmp/test

• Will mount on 192.168.0.55 (NAS): mount -t nfs 127.0.0.1:/mnt/DiskArray/mystuff/ /tmp/test

The mount -t nfs 192.168.0.55 is the one that the cluster does actually. So i either need to find a way for it to use 127.0.0.1 on the NAS machine, or use a hostname that might be better to resolve

EDIT:

I was acutally WAY simpler.

I just added 192.168.0.55 to my /etc/exports file. It works fine now ^^

Thanks a lot for your help@theit8514@lemmy.world !

Exactly thanks!

Haha sorry indeed, it’s Kubernetes related and not Windows WeDontSayItsName related 😄

You are completely right.

However in my mind (might be wrong here) if I use another node, i wouldn’t use the RAID array completely.

While setup up i thought that its either:

• NAS storageClass attached to the RAID array, no longhorn
• with longhorn when there is no RAID, but replication at 3

In either case, the availability of my data would be quite the same right ?

(Then there is options to backup my PV to s3 with longhorn and all that i would have to setup again though )

Thanks for your answer !

I would guess it doesn’t like replica at 1 indeed.

And using a NAS would be a single point of failure indeed, but how I’m using Longhorn right now already is (my storage node goes down, my cluster would be unstable)

Thanks !

Hello ! Thanks for your response!

Yes RAID is used as availability of my data here, with or without longhorn, there wouldn’t be much difference there (especially since i only use one specific node)

And you would be right, since the other nodes are unscheduled, it will be available only on my “storage node” so if this one goes down my storage goes down.

That’s why i might be overkill with longhorn, but there are functions to restore and backup to s3 for exemple that i would need to setup i guess

Hello ! Just adding my two cents for Scaleway. I’ve used them personally for some services (and probably will add s3 storage in the near future)

It’s seems pretty reliable in my opinion.

I think you are right indeed, i had the idea to maybe use the GC for AI stuff and play with it. I would probably go with kube and add the NAS in longhorn (that i already set up)

Would have been cool to add yet another machine to the cluster, especially if i could use the NAS for the kube VolumeClaims. 🤔

Also true

I understand! If you need help to do that (or someone to contribute), hit me up ! 😄

Actually yes, I had a look at them since i wanted to write HelmCharts for the community. That’s also where the community can step up, it can only be better 😊

This is the way.

It’s actually how people build their images, in which some include sensitive data (when they should definitely not). It’s the same problem as exposed S3 buckets actually, nothing wrong with docker in itself.