I hadn't heard about k8s "local storage". IIUC this fixes each pod to a single node, so the potential benefits of k8s can't be fully realized. It seems that clustering could still be achieved by running muliple instances across multiple nodes, each with local storage. I might still prefer this to having to manage NFS and any difficulties that might come from using MySQL with remote disks.
It just seems like k8s is coercing people to do things that they normally wouldn't do: MySQL on NFS, Postgres on Ceph, etc. In this case, OP just wants to "kubernetify my run of the mil lamp app" and is now being pointed towards NFS, Ceph, etc. I can't help but wonder if the juice is worth the sqeeze. Especially for services like databases that for most people probably don't really require dynamic provisioning or orchestration.
It just seems like k8s is coercing people to do things that they normally wouldn't do: MySQL on NFS, Postgres on Ceph, etc. In this case, OP just wants to "kubernetify my run of the mil lamp app" and is now being pointed towards NFS, Ceph, etc. I can't help but wonder if the juice is worth the sqeeze. Especially for services like databases that for most people probably don't really require dynamic provisioning or orchestration.