1

I would like to know if it is logical to use a redundant NFS/GFS share for webcontent instead of using docker volumes?

I'm trying to build a HA docker environment with the least amount of additional tooling. I would like to stick to 3 servers, each a docker swarm node.

Currently I'm looking into storage: an NFS/GFS filesystem cluster would require additional tooling for a small environment (100gb max storage). I would like to only use native docker supported configurations. So I would prefer to use volumes and share those across containers. However, those volumes are, for as far as I know, not synchronized to other swarm nodes by default.. so if the swarm node that hosts the data volume goes down it will be unavailable for each container across the swarm..

Robbert
  • 444
  • 5
  • 13

1 Answers1

1

A few things, that together, should answer your question:

  1. Volumes use a driver, and the default driver in Docker run and Swarm services is the built-in "local" driver which only supports file paths that are mounted on that host. For using shared storage with Swarm services, you'll want a 3rd party plugin driver, like REX-Ray. An official list is here: store.docker.com

  2. What you want to look for in a volume driver is one that's "docker swarm aware" that will re-attach volumes to a new task created if old Swarm service task is killed/updated. Tools like REX-Ray are almost like a "persistent data orchestrator" that ensures volumes are attached to the proper node where they are needed.

  3. I'm not sure what web content you're talking about, but if it's code or templates, it should be built into the image. If you're talking about user uploaded content that needs to be backed up, then yep a volume sounds like the right way.

Bret Fisher
  • 8,164
  • 2
  • 31
  • 36