Below is my kubernetes file and I need to do two things
I have on my local /tmp/zoo folder both the files and my zoo folder files never appear in /bitnami/zookeeper inside the pod.
The below is the updated Service,Deployment,PVC and PV
apiVersion: v1
items:
- apiVersion: v1
kind: Service
metadata:
annotations:
kompose.service.type: nodeport
creationTimestamp: null
labels:
io.kompose.service: zookeeper
name: zookeeper
spec:
ports:
- name: "2181"
port: 2181
targetPort: 2181
selector:
io.kompose.service: zookeeper
type: NodePort
status:
loadBalancer: {}
- apiVersion: apps/v1
kind: Deployment
metadata:
annotations:
kompose.service.type: nodeport
creationTimestamp: null
name: zookeeper
spec:
replicas: 1
selector:
matchLabels:
io.kompose.service: zookeeper
strategy:
type: Recreate
template:
metadata:
creationTimestamp: null
labels:
io.kompose.service: zookeeper
spec:
containers:
- image: bitnami/zookeeper:3
name: zookeeper
ports:
- containerPort: 2181
env:
- name: ALLOW_ANONYMOUS_LOGIN
value: "yes"
resources: {}
volumeMounts:
- mountPath: /bitnami/zoo
name: bitnamidockerzookeeper-zookeeper-data
restartPolicy: Always
volumes:
- name: bitnamidockerzookeeper-zookeeper-data
#hostPath:
#path: /tmp/tmp1
persistentVolumeClaim:
claimName: bitnamidockerzookeeper-zookeeper-data
status: {}
- apiVersion: v1
kind: PersistentVolumeClaim
metadata:
creationTimestamp: null
labels:
io.kompose.service: bitnamidockerzookeeper-zookeeper-data
type: local
name: bitnamidockerzookeeper-zookeeper-data
spec:
accessModes:
- ReadWriteOnce
resources:
requests:
storage: 100Mi
status: {}
- apiVersion: v1
kind: PersistentVolume
metadata:
name: foo
spec:
storageClassName: manual
claimRef:
name: bitnamidockerzookeeper-zookeeper-data
capacity:
storage: 100Mi
accessModes:
- ReadWriteMany
hostPath:
path: /tmp/tmp1
status: {}
kind: List
metadata: {}
There are a few potential issues in your YAML.
First, the accessModes of the PersistentVolume doesn't match the one of the PersistentVolumeClaim. One way to fix that is to list both ReadWriteMany and ReadWriteOnce in the accessModes of the PersistentVolume.
Then, the PersistentVolume doesn't specify a storageClassName. As a result, if you have a StorageClass configured to be the default StorageClass on your cluster (you can see that with kubectl get sc), it will automatically provision a PersistentVolume dynamically instead of using the PersistentVolume that you declared. So you need to specify a storageClassName. The StorageClass doesn't have to exist for real (since we're using static provisioning instead of dynamic anyway).
Next, the claimRef in PersistentVolume needs to mention the Namespace of the PersistentVolumeClaim. As a reminder: PersistentVolumes are cluster resources, so they don't have a Namespace; but PersistentVolumeClaims belong to the same Namespace as the Pod that mounts them.
Another thing is that the path used by Zookeeper data in the bitnami image is /bitnami/zookeeper, not /bitnami/zoo.
You will also need to initialize permissions in that volume, because by default, only root will have write access, and Zookeeper runs as non-root here, and won't have write access to the data subdirectory.
Here is an updated YAML that addresses all these points. I also rewrote the YAML to use the YAML multi-document syntax (resources separated by ---) instead of the kind: List syntax, and I removed a lot of fields that weren't used (like the empty status: fields and the labels that weren't strictly necessary). It works on my KinD cluster, I hope it will also work in your situation.
If your cluster has only one node, this will work fine, but if you have multiple nodes, you might need to tweak things a little bit to make sure that the volume is bound to a specific node (I added a commented out nodeAffinity section in the YAML, but you might also have to change the bind mode - I only have a one-node cluster to test it out right now; but the Kubernetes documentation and blog have abundant details on this; https://stackoverflow.com/a/69517576/580281 also has details about this binding mode thing).
One last thing: in this scenario, I think it might make more sense to use a StatefulSet. It would not make a huge difference but would more clearly indicate intent (Zookeeper is a stateful service) and in the general case (beyond local hostPath volumes) it would avoid having two Zookeeper Pods accessing the volume simultaneously.
apiVersion: v1
kind: Service
metadata:
name: zookeeper
spec:
ports:
- name: "2181"
port: 2181
targetPort: 2181
selector:
io.kompose.service: zookeeper
type: NodePort
---
apiVersion: apps/v1
kind: Deployment
metadata:
name: zookeeper
spec:
replicas: 1
selector:
matchLabels:
io.kompose.service: zookeeper
template:
metadata:
labels:
io.kompose.service: zookeeper
spec:
initContainers:
- image: alpine
name: chmod
volumeMounts:
- mountPath: /bitnami/zookeeper
name: bitnamidockerzookeeper-zookeeper-data
command: [ sh, -c, "chmod 777 /bitnami/zookeeper" ]
containers:
- image: bitnami/zookeeper:3
name: zookeeper
ports:
- containerPort: 2181
env:
- name: ALLOW_ANONYMOUS_LOGIN
value: "yes"
volumeMounts:
- mountPath: /bitnami/zookeeper
name: bitnamidockerzookeeper-zookeeper-data
volumes:
- name: bitnamidockerzookeeper-zookeeper-data
persistentVolumeClaim:
claimName: bitnamidockerzookeeper-zookeeper-data
---
apiVersion: v1
kind: PersistentVolumeClaim
metadata:
name: bitnamidockerzookeeper-zookeeper-data
spec:
storageClassName: manual
accessModes:
- ReadWriteOnce
resources:
requests:
storage: 100Mi
---
apiVersion: v1
kind: PersistentVolume
metadata:
name: tmp-tmp1
spec:
storageClassName: manual
claimRef:
name: bitnamidockerzookeeper-zookeeper-data
namespace: default
capacity:
storage: 100Mi
accessModes:
- ReadWriteMany
- ReadWriteOnce
hostPath:
path: /tmp/tmp1
#nodeAffinity:
# required:
# nodeSelectorTerms:
# - matchExpressions:
# - key: kubernetes.io/hostname
# operator: In
# values:
# - kind-control-plane