Using https://github.com/helm/charts/tree/master/stable/mysql (all the code is here), it is cool being able to run mysql as part of my local kubernetes cluster (using docker kubernetes).
The problem though is that once I stop running the pod, and then run the pod again, all the data that was stored is now gone.
My question is how do I keep the data that was added to the mysql pod? I have read about persistent volumes, and the mysql helm example from github is showing that it is using PersistentVolumeClaim. I have also enabled persistence on the values.yaml file, but I cannot seem to have the same data that was saved in the database.
My docker kubernetes version is currently 1.14.6.
Please verify your msql POD You should notice volumes and volumesMount options:
volumeMounts:
- mountPath: /var/lib/mysql
name: data
.
.
.
volumes:
- name: data
persistentVolumeClaim:
claimName: msq-mysql
In additions please verify your PersistentVolume and PersistentVolumeClaim, storageClass:
kubectl get pv,pvc,pods,sc:
NAME CAPACITY ACCESS MODES RECLAIM POLICY STATUS CLAIM STORAGECLASS REASON AGE
persistentvolume/pvc-2c6aa172-effd-11e9-beeb-42010a840083 8Gi RWO Delete Bound default/msq-mysql standard 24m
NAME STATUS VOLUME CAPACITY ACCESS MODES STORAGECLASS AGE
persistentvolumeclaim/msq-mysql Bound pvc-2c6aa172-effd-11e9-beeb-42010a840083 8Gi RWO standard 24m
NAME READY STATUS RESTARTS AGE IP NODE NOMINATED NODE READINESS GATES
pod/msq-mysql-b5c48c888-pz6p2 1/1 Running 0 4m28s 10.0.0.8 gke-te-1-default-pool-36546f4e-5rgw <none> <none>
Please run kubectl describe persistentvolumeclaim/msq-mysql (in your example you should change the pvc name)
You can notice that pvc was provisioned successfully using gce-pd and mounted by msq-mysql POD.
Normal ProvisioningSucceeded 26m persistentvolume-controller Successfully provisioned volume pvc-2c6aa172-effd-11e9-beeb-42010a840083 using kubernetes.io/gce-pd
Mounted By: msq-mysql-b5c48c888-pz6p2
I have created table with on row, deleted the pod and verified after that (as expected everything is alright):
mysql> SELECT * FROM t;
+------+
| c |
+------+
| ala |
+------+
1 row in set (0.00 sec)
Why: all the data that was stored is now gone.
As per helm chart docs:
The MySQL image stores the MySQL data and configurations at the /var/lib/mysql path of the container.
By default a PersistentVolumeClaim is created and mounted into that directory. In order to disable this functionality you can change the values.yaml to disable persistence and use an emptyDir instead.
Mostly there is problem with pv,pvc binding. It can be also problem with user defined or non default storageClass.
So please verify pv,pvc as stated above.
Take a look at StorageClass
A claim can request a particular class by specifying the name of a StorageClass using the attribute storageClassName. Only PVs of the requested class, ones with the same storageClassName as the PVC, can be bound to the PVC.
PVCs don’t necessarily have to request a class. A PVC with its storageClassName set equal to "" is always interpreted to be requesting a PV with no class, so it can only be bound to PVs with no class (no annotation or one set equal to ""). A PVC with no storageClassName is not quite the same and is treated differently by the cluster, depending on whether the DefaultStorageClass admission plugin is turned on.
Related
Trying to set vm.max_map_count with the node tuning operator and the openshift ClusterLogging operator. Openshift version is 4.9.17, cluster logging and elasticsearch operators are latest.
This is my tuned configuration:
apiVersion: tuned.openshift.io/v1
kind: Tuned
name: common-services-es
namespace: openshift-cluster-node-tuning-operator
spec:
profile:
- data: |
[main]
summary=Optimize systems running ES on OpenShift nodes
include=openshift-node
[sysctl]
vm.max_map_count=262144
name: common-services-es
recommend:
- match:
- label: component
type: pod
value: elasticsearch
priority: 5
profile: common-services-es
My ClusterLogging operator configuration is the default operator, and I can verify the labels component=elasticsearch on the pod.
Getting the pod logs with the following command
for p in `oc get pods -n openshift-cluster-node-tuning-operator -l openshift-app=tuned -o=jsonpath='{range .items[*]}{.metadata.name} {end}'`; do printf "\n*** $p ***\n" ; oc logs pod/$p -n openshift-cluster-node-tuning-operator | grep applied; done
returns tuned.daemon.daemon: static tuning from profile 'common-services-es' applied on all 3 of my es nodes, but the elasticsearch pod still fails to start with the error max virtual memory areas vm.max_map_count [253832] is too low, increase to at least [262144] and running sysctl vm.max_map_count on the nodes confirm the value is 253832.
Turns out that IBM Cloud openshift doesn't use machineconfigs, and tuned uses machineconfigs.
I'm trying to run WordPress by using Kubernetes link, and the only change is I changed 20Gi to 5Gi, but when I run kubectl apply -k ., I get this error:
Error from server (Forbidden): error when creating ".": persistentvolumeclaims "wp-pv-claim" is forbidden: exceeded quota: storagequota, requested: requests.storage=5Gi, used: requests.storage=5Gi, limited: requests.storage=5Gi
I searched but did not find any related answer to mine (or even maybe I'm wrong).
Could you please answer me these questions:
How to solve the above issue?
If the volume's size is limited to 5G, then the pod cannot be bigger than 5G? I mean if I exec into the pod and run a command like dd if=/dev/zero of=file bs=1M count=8000, should it create an 8G file or not? I mean this quota and volume limits whole the pod? Or only a specific path like /var/www/html?
Edit 1
describe pvc mysql-pv-claim
Name: mysql-pv-claim
Namespace: default
StorageClass:
Status: Pending
Volume:
Labels: app=wordpress
Annotations: <none>
Finalizers: [kubernetes.io/pvc-protection]
Capacity:
Access Modes:
VolumeMode: Filesystem
Used By: wordpress-mysql-6c479567b-vzpm5
Events:
Type Reason Age From Message
---- ------ ---- ---- -------
Normal FailedBinding 4m (x222 over 59m) persistentvolume-controller no persistent volumes available for this claim and no storage class is set
I decided to summarize our comments conversation for better readability and visibility.
The issue at first seemed to be caused by resourcequota.
Error from server (Forbidden): error when creating ".": persistentvolumeclaims "wp-pv-claim" is forbidden: exceeded quota: storagequota, requested: requests.storage=5Gi, used: requests.storage=5Gi, limited: requests.storage=5Gi
It looked like there was already existing PVC and it wouldn't allow to create a new one.
OP removed the resource quota although it was not necessary in this case since the real issue was with the PVC.
kubectl describe pvc mysql-pv-claim showed the following event:
Events:
Type Reason Age From Message
---- ------ ---- ---- -------
Normal FailedBinding 4m (x222 over 59m) persistentvolume-controller no persistent volumes available for this claim and no storage class is set
Event message:
persistentvolume-controller no persistent volumes available for this claim and no storage class is set
Since OP created the cluster with kubeadm and kubeadm doesn't come with a predeployed storage provider out of the box; this means that it needs to be added manually. (Storage Provider is a controller that can create a volume and mount it).
Each StorageClass has a provisioner that determines what volume plugin is used for provisioning PVs. This field must be specified. Since there was no storage class in cluster, OP decided to create one and picked Local storage class but forgot that:
Local volumes do not currently support dynamic provisioning [...].
and
Local volumes can only be used as a statically created PersistentVolume. Dynamic provisioning is not supported
This means that a local volume had to be created manually.
EDITED:
I have a service running in OpenShift on 2 pods, let's call them P1 and P2.
The service does two things:
An API
We listen to Kafka messages from a topic and then process them.
Is there a way I can restrict all calls made to API only to P1 and all calls for Kafka only to P2 ?
My suggestion may not fit with your requests, but if each one pod is running in a specific project, then it would be available as follows.
First, you should configure pod's source IP statically using Egress IP based on project level, refer Enabling Static IPs for External Project Traffic for more details.
$ oc patch netnamespace p1_project -p '{"egressIPs": ["1.1.1.1"]}'
$ oc patch netnamespace p2_project -p '{"egressIPs": ["2.2.2.2"]}'
After that, you can allow each pod IP based on whitelist, refer Route-specific IP Whitelists for more details.
kind: Route
metadata:
name: R1
annotations:
haproxy.router.openshift.io/ip_whitelist: 1.1.1.1
kind: Route
metadata:
name: R2
annotations:
haproxy.router.openshift.io/ip_whitelist: 2.2.2.2
I hope it help you.
I'm trying to run this Zookeeper Openshift example or the equivalent kubernetes one, but I end with errors such as:
FirstSeen LastSeen Count From SubObjectPath Type Reason Message
--------- -------- ----- ---- ------------- -------- ------ -------
1h 12s 281 {default-scheduler } Warning FailedScheduling [SchedulerPredicates failed due to PersistentVolumeClaim is not bound: "datadir-zoo-0", which is unexpected., SchedulerPredicates failed due to PersistentVolumeClaim is not bound: "datadir-zoo-0", which is unexpected.]
or
error finding provisioning plugin for claim test/datadir-zoo-2: cannot find volume plugin for alpha provisioning
Here is my openshift template.yaml
I'm note sure but I suspect that it might be due to line volume.alpha.kubernetes.io/storage-class: anything, because I don't think that there is any default StorageClass defined...
If so how can I set up the most simple StorageClass to get this to work, because as I'm self-hosting my openshift origin cluster, I cannot fit into any of the cloud storage option (GCE, AWS, Azure, etc...)?
I think it actually is more related to the setup of storage on your cluster.
There are several storage options as mentioned at OpenShift Origin: Persistent Storage
If you run it locally, you could use NFS (see OpenShift Origin: Persistent Storage using NFS).
If you run it in minishift or single node cluster, you can use HostPath (see Minishift Persistent Volumes). In this case it would be enough to create a PersistentVolume of size 1GB. Then the PersistentVolumeClaim in your template can be bound.
This may be a dumb question but I haven't found much online and want to clarify this.
Given two deployments A and B, both with different container images:
They're deployed in two different pods(different rc, svc etc.) in a K8/OpenShift cluster.
They both need to access the same volume to read files (let's leave locking out of this for now) or at least the same directory structure in that volume.
Mounting this volume using a PVC (Persistent Volume Claim) backed by a PV (Persistent Volume) configured against a NFS share.
Can I confirm that the above would actually be possible? I.e. two different pods connected to the same volume with the same PVC. So they both are reading from the same volume.
Hope that makes sense...
TL;DR
You can share PV and PVC within the same project/namespace for shared volumes (nfs, gluster, etc...), you can also access your shared volume from multiple project/namespaces but it will require project dedicated PV and PVCs, as a PV is bound to single project/namespace and PVC is project/namespace scoped.
Below I've tried to illustrate the current behavior and how PV and PVCs are scoped within OpenShift. These are simple examples using NFS as the persistent storage layer.
the accessModes at this point are just labels, they have no real functionality in terms of controlling access to PV. Below are some examples to show this
the PV is global in the sense that it can be seen/accessed by any project/namespace, HOWEVER once it is bound to a project, it can then only be accessed by containers from the same project/namespace
the PVC is project/namespace specific (so if you have multple projects you would need to have a new PV and PVC for each project to connect to the shared NFS volume - can not reuse the PV from first project)
Example 1:
I have 2 distinct pods running in "default" project/namespace, both accessing the same PV and NFS exported share. Both mount and run fine.
[root#k8dev nfs_error]# oc get pv
NAME LABELS CAPACITY ACCESSMODES STATUS CLAIM REASON AGE
pv-nfs <none> 1Gi RWO Bound default/nfs-claim 3m
[root#k8dev nfs_error]# oc get pods <--- running from DEFAULT project, no issues connecting to PV
NAME READY STATUS RESTARTS AGE
nfs-bb-pod2-pvc 1/1 Running 0 11m
nfs-bb-pod3-pvc 1/1 Running 0 10m
Example 2:
I have 2 distinct pods running in "default" project/namespace and attempt to create another pod using the same PV but from a new project called testproject to access the same NFS export. The third pod from the new testproject will not be able to bind to the PV as it is already bound by default project.
[root#k8dev nfs_error]# oc get pv
NAME LABELS CAPACITY ACCESSMODES STATUS CLAIM REASON AGE
pv-nfs <none> 1Gi RWO Bound default/nfs-claim 3m
[root#k8dev nfs_error]# oc get pods <--- running from DEFAULT project, no issues connecting to PV
NAME READY STATUS RESTARTS AGE
nfs-bb-pod2-pvc 1/1 Running 0 11m
nfs-bb-pod3-pvc 1/1 Running 0 10m
** Create a new claim against the existing PV from another project (testproject) and the PVC will fail
[root#k8dev nfs_error]# oc get pvc
NAME LABELS STATUS VOLUME CAPACITY ACCESSMODES AGE
nfs-claim <none> Pending 2s
** nfs-claim will never bind to the pv-nfs PV because it can not see it from it's current project scope
Example 3:
I have 2 distinct pods running in the "default" project and then create another PV and PVC and Pod from testproject. Both projects will be able to access the same NFS exported share but I need a PV and PVC in each of the projects.
[root#k8dev nfs_error]# oc get pv
NAME LABELS CAPACITY ACCESSMODES STATUS CLAIM REASON AGE
pv-nfs <none> 1Gi RWX Bound default/nfs-claim 14m
pv-nfs2 <none> 1Gi RWX Bound testproject/nfs-claim2 9m
[root#k8dev nfs_error]# oc get pods --all-namespaces
NAMESPACE NAME READY STATUS RESTARTS AGE
default nfs-bb-pod2-pvc 1/1 Running 0 11m
default nfs-bb-pod3-pvc 1/1 Running 0 11m
testproject nfs-bb-pod4-pvc 1/1 Running 0 15s
** notice, I now have three pods running to the same NFS shared volume across two projects, but I needed two PV's as they are bound to a single project, and 2 PVC's, one for each project and the NFS PV I am trying to access
Example 4:
If I by-pass PV and PVC, I can connect to the shared NFS volumes directly from any project using the nfs plugin directly
volumes:
- name: nfsvol
nfs:
path: /opt/data5
server: nfs1.rhs
Now, the volume security is another layer on top of this, using supplementalGroups (for shared storage, i.e. nfs, gluster, etc...), admins and devs should further be able to manage and control access to the shared NFS system.
Hope that helps
I came across this article Learn how to recreate an existing PVC in a new namespace, reusing the same PV with no data losses. I haven't tested it but worth a try. However, k8s docs say PV-to-PVC relationship is one-to-one.
A Note on Namespaces
PersistentVolumes binds are exclusive, and since PersistentVolumeClaims are namespaced objects, mounting claims with "Many" modes (ROX, RWX) is only possible within one namespace.
Reference: https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/storage/persistent-volumes/#a-note-on-namespaces
AFAIK, binding a PV multiple times is not supported. You can use volume source (NFS in your case) directly for your use case.