Why are there two different storage class portworx porivisioners: pxd.portworx.com and kubernetes.io/portworx-volume?

Portworx on Kubernetes
,
1

Portworx supports the following two ways of provisioning PVCs:

  • Using the kubernetes in-tree plugin
  • Using kubernetes CSI provisioner

Based on the method you choose you will need to provide the corresponding provisioner type

Using Kubernetes in-tree plugin

Portworx has an in-built storage plugin in kubernetes. If you wish to use the in-tree Portworx plugin to provision PVCs you will need to specify the following provisioner in your storage class:

provisioner: kubernetes.io/portworx-volume

More information on how to dynamically provision Portworx PVCs here:

Using Kubernetes CSI provisioner

CSI, or Container Storage Interface , is a model for integrating storage system service with Kubernetes and other orchestration systems. Kubernetes has supported CSI since 1.10 as beta. If you wish to use the CSI method for provisioning Portworx PVCs you will need to specify the following provisioner in your storage class

provisioner: pxd.portworx.com

More information on how to use CSI for provisioning Portworx PVCs here:

2

Hi, we are trying to figure out which provisioner to use. Most of the portworx documentation refers to
provisioner: kubernetes.io/portworx-volume

There is a “Portworx CSI driver” section too which seems to refer to the csi provisioner. It seems like pretty much all the features are supported in the portworx CSI driver. We are using portworx with pure flasharray and are just boot strapping our production cluster. Is it better to use CSI provisioning OR in-tree provisioning?