Post #4437567

2026-04-23 22:05 UTC

@pat_dev@social.linux.pizza My issue isn't so much that I don't have RWX volumes. I do, based on CephFS. The issue here is two-fold, and has to do with OCI image builds. CephFS is slower than using an RWO RBD as the basis for the workflow volumes. Plus, OverlayFS does not work on CephFS, so I'd have to use the slower VFS driver. Both would result in far longer image builds. And Woodpecker doesn't allow configuring the StorageClass to be used per workflow, only for the entire instance. @louis@social.louis-vallat.dev

Replies (1)

@pat_dev@social.linux.pizza 2026-04-23 22:23

@mmeier@social.mei-home.net Yes the latter applies (I am a former multi-year maintainer, as a disclaimer). I read the previous posts only briefly and read something about services alongside the main workflow pods. If disk performance with DBs as services is an issue, you might want to check out tmpfs even, depending on the exact use case. RWX shouldn't slow down image building as most image builds don't rely heavily on disk IO but rather on CPU. Unless you copy many small files from multiple base images etc. Most images don't install/copy that much but build a single binary (cpu heavy) and are done. But yeah, I don't know your image or exact use case so if you're sure it slows down heavily and there isn't an alternative way to build it, then it might just be so. Background: the way you described the issue in the former posts made it sound to me as if there was a potential misunderstanding on the conceptual level - but I might be wrong ;)

Open ##4437568