Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Multiple storage sources managed by one CSI driver? #579

Open
RuairiSinkler opened this issue Feb 28, 2025 · 0 comments
Open

Multiple storage sources managed by one CSI driver? #579

RuairiSinkler opened this issue Feb 28, 2025 · 0 comments

Comments

@RuairiSinkler
Copy link

If this is the wrong place to ask this then I apologise, please point me to where I would best seek this advise.

For context, we have written our own CSI driver for manage NetApp volumes - unfortunately NetApp's solution Trident did not fulfil our needs.

Up until now this driver has simply been required to manage volumes in a single NetApp instance for a given kubernetes cluster. We now want the cluster to be able to provision and use volumes from different instances of NetApp (i.e. different IP address, different API etc.).

My question is which of the following would be considered the most "correct":

  1. Having an instance of the driver for each NetApp backend we want to use - a 1-to-1 of driver to NetApp
  2. Having a single instance of the CSI driver, which can interact with multiple NetApp's to provision volumes in multiple places - a 1-to-many relationship of driver to NetApp

I have tried searching the spec but couldn't find a definitive answer, and have seen examples of both e.g. https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/aws-efs-csi-driver AWS's EFS driver being limited to serving from a given file system vs Trident's implementation of "backends" allowing it to serve multiple NetApps: https://docs.netapp.com/us-en/trident/trident-use/backend-kubectl.html#tridentbackendconfig

Trident's approach seems good as it means we only have to provision one driver running in our cluster, and seems more advanced, but is this an anti-pattern?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant