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

Specify a custom volume for downloads folder #54

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

dark-vex
Copy link

@dark-vex dark-vex commented Dec 2, 2022

I have introduced the possibility to specify an additional NFS volume for the downloads folder.

This can be useful when using for example the Synology download client and you store the downloaded file on a different volume and/or shared folder.

The best way would be to provide a list of volumes under general.storage.volumes but in order to avoid introducing a breaking changes on the current implementation, I have created a new key general.storage.downloadsVolume

@kubealex
Copy link
Owner

Hi @dark-vex thank you for your contribution.
May I ask you where the storage resource is introduced? I see the reference in the resources, but I cannot see where the NFS storage is defined in the manifests.

Can you please elaborate a bit?

@dark-vex
Copy link
Author

Hey @kubealex sorry I didn't get back to you! It works like the current implementation of cluster external NFS server so the pods will have the nfs server defined under volumes section:

  volumes:
  - name: download-volume
    nfs:
      server: nfs-server.domain.tld
      path: /my-nfs-volume
      readOnly: true

Hope this makes sense

@KnightDoom
Copy link

KnightDoom commented Mar 17, 2023

This looks great.
I had to do this manually via a script and patching my k3s deployments.
Will need to ensure sabnzbd is also included. I can contribute once the pull is completed.

Wondering if there is a difference between passing it as a PVC and opening multiple NFS clients in this approach.

@dark-vex
Copy link
Author

Wondering if there is a difference between passing it as a PVC and opening multiple NFS clients in this approach.

Performance wise probably yes but I didn't had the chance to perform any test on this matter

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants