Difference between hostPath mounts and UserVolumeConfig

[VirtualEvan]

In our cluster we have configured Longhorn and were now planning to deploy Local Path Provisioner.

As indicated in their guide, in order to setup we needed to create a hostPath mount.

This kind of mounts was also explained in the Local Storage documentation for talos 1.9
However, this seems to have changed for Talos 1.10, where it was replaced by a UserVolumeConfig object in the Local Storage documentation. It is also the suggested way to configure Local Path Provisioner.

I would like to keep the setup consistent, so I was wondering if there was any difference or limitation between these two? Is UserVolumeConfig just a wrapper around the hostPath configuration? or is there some additional logic/performance improvement from using it?

---

Just adding, my plan was to configure something like this for both storage methods.

machine:
  kubelet:
    extraMounts:
      - destination: /var/lib/longhorn
        type: bind
        source: /var/lib/longhorn
        options:
          - bind
          - rshared
          - rw

      - destination: /var/lib/local-path
        type: bind
        source: /var/lib/local-path
        options:
          - bind
          - rshared
          - rw

[smira]

I will keep my answer short, without going into too many details: go with UserVolumeConfig, it's way better and easier to use.

With that, you don't need to do any kubelet configuration - just use the volumes as soon as it's available.

[VirtualEvan]

As always, thanks for your quick response. And sorry for my delay, long weekend 😅

I will go ahead and give it a try with the new way.
In fact, I just found this issue in the longhorn repo where an update for the documentation is being discussed. longhorn/longhorn#11015