TLDR:
Is nginx ingress the way to go, or is it possible to work around the GKE Ingress http status 200 healtcheck requirement for each endpoint? If so, how?
I have been tasked with deploying an IPFS-Cluster on Kubernetes, the goal is to achieve the following:
With said setup, all the data uploaded through port 5001 would be pinned on all the IPFS nodes within the cluster. Does this make sense or do I miss something obvious?
The pods can not start the first time they are created, because the Volumes are also just being created. How can I wait until a Volume is ready, before proceeding?
What is the recommended way of exposing the needed endpoints? It would be nice if we could benefit from the Google Cloud CDN by using the GKE L7 LoadBalancer. However I have failed to work around the “status 200 health-check” requirement on all the exposed endpoints.
There is an open issue regarding custom healthchecks:
Your understanding is correct. However, because the api/v0/add request results in simultaneously adding to all peers in the cluster (using blockPuts), this incurrs in significicant overhead for large files. If you are working with small files (~5MB or so), you will not notice much. When working with larger files you will notice.
One way to speed up is to use the rest api /add endpoint (:9094) setting local=true. This will just add on the node receiving the request (and not all nodes at the same time), and cluster-pin when finished. The rest of the nodes will copy the content via pubsub, much faster.
I have no much idea about kubernetes, surely there is a way to specify dependencies among resources.
What is the problem with this health check. You can probably point to to api/v0/version or some dummy endpoint that returns 200 unless the node is down. Wouldn’t that work? Edit: from the linked issue it may seem that kubernetes is very stupid if it does not allow to query other than /. I can’t hardly believe that, there has to be a better way.
Thank you very much for getting back to me so quickly. I will look into it.
I’m just thinking out loud here: would it not make sense to also enable this option/feature on the IPFS-Proxy-Api? Essentially the Idea is for this IPFS-Cluster to be of public nature and people should be able to interact with the cluster as if it was a normal IPFS node. Also this way we will not need to open up another port just for one operation.
What do you think?
I will keep digging in regards to Kubernetes best practices.
