Storage Integration

Josh Rosso

Core Kubernetes does not concern itself with storage integration. At most, it provides a set of APIs, Persistent Volumes, Persistent Volume Claims, and Storage Classes. By default, containers can use their own ephemeral storage system and/or leverage host storage. Both of these solutions are typically inadequate for enterprise workloads. Ephemeral storage goes away if the container dies. Host storage ties the container to a specific host and (depending on how you access host storage) it can be insecure in multi-tenant environments.

The model used by most enterprise platforms is to introduce a provider that can enable dynamic provisioning of volumes for workloads requiring some amount of persistence. Integration to providers is typically accomplished through a container storage interface (CSI) plugin. The following demonstrates the relationship.

Dynamic Storage Provisioning

There is high variance in how the above works based on the provider. Some providers create multiple PVs ahead of time and make them available to workloads. The above is only meant to give a conceptual overview of how the flow might work.

Container Storage Interface (CSI)

Kubernetes uses the container storage interface (CSI) to provide storage functionality to containers. Storage is implemented in CSI plugins. This interface / plugin model enables Kubernetes to support many storage options implemented via plugins (or drivers) such as vSphere, portworx, AWS EFS, and NetApp.

A more complete list is available in the CSI driver documentation.

Prior to standardization around CSI, the implementation of storage integrations had high-variance across providers. There are two common models for running storage drivers in Kubernetes. These are through cloud providers and dedicated storage providers. Cloud providers (such as AWS and vSphere) package their storage driver into the provider, so that it can handle all the integration points such as provisioning load balancers and storage volumes. Dedicated integrations run as independent processes managing only storage. Below you’ll find explanations on each.

In-tree Providers

Historically, Kubernetes relied on in-tree “cloud” provider functionality for most storage integration. This method of integration predates CSI. These providers are referred to as in-tree because their code lives in the core kubernetes/kubernetes repo. With this model, every Kubernetes cluster has cloud provider logic in it, even if it wasn’t activated. In a cluster integrated with vCenter, the kube-apiserver, controller-manager, and kubelet will look as follows.

In-tree provider

As you can imagine, shipping these components with cloud-provider logic for every cut of Kubernetes is not a good model. Additionally, the in-tree model does not allow you to update the provider without updating your cluster. In-tree providers have been deprecated and are planned to be removed. You should not use an in-tree provider for storage integration of your platform.

Out-of-tree Providers

Out-of-tree providers encapsulate cloud-provider logic in a controller. This controller is commonly referred to as a cloud-controller-manager (CCM). The CCM is deployed to your cluster and interacts with the cloud-provider’s APIs. The storage driver (CSI-plugin) often runs outside of the CCM, but can require the CCM to function correctly. In the case of vSphere, you install 3 components.

ComponentNameType
Cloud Controller Managervsphere-cloud-controllerDeployment
Storage Controllervsphere-csi-controllerStatefulSet
Storage Driver (CSI-plugin)vsphere-csi-nodeDaemonSet

With these components installed, a 4 node Kubernetes cluster (assuming 1 master) would look as follows.

Out-of-tree provider

Dedicated Storage Integrations

Some storage providers have nothing to do with cloud-provider integration. In this case they run their integrations / drivers as isolated processes (pods in Kubernetes). An example of this model is NetApp’s Trident integration. Running trident in a cluster will provision volumes against its supported providers, such as NetApp’s SolidFire. It also handles concerns around backup and recovery. Another common project that follows this model is rook, which provides integration with providers like Ceph and NFS.

Option Considerations

There is no shortage of CSI-plugin options. For your environment, the decision may be easy because you only have one type of storage available to you, for example vSAN. However, if you’re thinking about integrating a new storage provider, it’s important that you consider the storage offerings and resiliency guarantees your platform needs to offer. Some key considerations are:

  • What I/O speeds are required for platform workloads?
  • What disaster scenarios does the persistence layer need to handle?
  • How many workloads will need persistent storage?
    • How much storage do you need and what are your expansion requirements?
  • Do you need to offer dynamic volume resizing if a workload uses up its storage?
  • What backup scenarios (if any) do you plan to offer?
    • Alternatively, do you plan to make the application teams responsible for their backups?
  • What storage system can you realistically operate? Ceph? vSAN?

Having conversations around these points will help you determine the best storage integration for you.