# Percona MongoDB EKS with EFS, the second StatefulSet instances fails to access EFS

**URL:** <https://forums.percona.com/t/percona-mongodb-eks-with-efs-the-second-statefulset-instances-fails-to-access-efs/32196>\
**Category:** Percona Operator for MongoDB\
**Created:** [August 10, 2024, 3:26pm UTC](https://forums.percona.com/t/percona-mongodb-eks-with-efs-the-second-statefulset-instances-fails-to-access-efs/32196 "2024-08-10T15:26:34Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lucasbrazi06](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forums.percona.com/lucasbrazi06/32/17647_2.png) [@lucasbrazi06](https://forums.percona.com/u/lucasbrazi06)\
**Post date:** [August 10, 2024, 3:26pm UTC](https://forums.percona.com/t/percona-mongodb-eks-with-efs-the-second-statefulset-instances-fails-to-access-efs/32196/1 "2024-08-10T15:26:34Z")

</div>

## Description:

When using an EFS storage, each MongoDB StatefulSet instance uses a security user/group (1000/1000) that doesn’t change.  
So the first MongoDB stateful set instance with user/group 1000/1000 creates a PVC which creates an EFS access point with user/group 1000/1000 and starts up successfully because user/group of the instance matches the user/group of the EFS access point.  
The second MongoDB stateful set instance with user/group 1000/1000 creates a PVC which creates an access point in the EFS but with user/group 1001:1001 and fails to start because it the instance user/group does not match the EFS access point anymore.  
Do you have an idea of to user incremental user/group in MongoDB StatefulSet instances.  
Does Percona MongoDB works with EFS file system?

## Steps to Reproduce:

Create an EKS Cluster  
Create an EFS file system  
Create a Storage Class that points to the EFS  
Deploy Percona using the Storage class above  
The first MongoDB instance starts successfully with user/group 1000/1000  
The second instance fails with user/group 1000/1000 as it needs user/group 1001/1001.

## Version:

psmdb-operator:1.16.2  
psmdb-db:1.16.2

## Logs:

[1723303181:183107][1:0x7f7e346e7080], connection: [WT\_VERB\_DEFAULT][ERROR]: \_\_posix\_open\_file, 815: /data/db/key.db/WiredTiger.wt: handle-open: open: File exists  
[1723303181:187974][1:0x7f7e346e7080], connection: [WT\_VERB\_BLOCK][NOTICE]: unexpected file WiredTiger.wt found, renamed to WiredTiger.wt.6  
[1723303181:193852][1:0x7f7e346e7080], connection: [WT\_VERB\_DEFAULT][ERROR]: \_\_posix\_open\_file, 815: /data/db/key.db/WiredTiger.wt: handle-open: open: Operation not permitted  
[1723303181:223974][1:0x7f7e346e7080], connection: [WT\_VERB\_DEFAULT][ERROR]: \_\_posix\_open\_file, 815: /data/db/key.db/WiredTiger.wt: handle-open: open: File exists  
[1723303181:230089][1:0x7f7e346e7080], connection: [WT\_VERB\_BLOCK][NOTICE]: unexpected file WiredTiger.wt found, renamed to WiredTiger.wt.7  
[1723303181:235565][1:0x7f7e346e7080], connection: [WT\_VERB\_DEFAULT][ERROR]: \_\_posix\_open\_file, 815: /data/db/key.db/WiredTiger.wt: handle-open: open: Operation not permitted  
[1723303181:267552][1:0x7f7e346e7080], connection: [WT\_VERB\_DEFAULT][ERROR]: \_\_posix\_open\_file, 815: /data/db/key.db/WiredTiger.wt: handle-open: open: File exists  
[1723303181:273529][1:0x7f7e346e7080], connection: [WT\_VERB\_BLOCK][NOTICE]: unexpected file WiredTiger.wt found, renamed to WiredTiger.wt.8  
[1723303181:277818][1:0x7f7e346e7080], connection: [WT\_VERB\_DEFAULT][ERROR]: \_\_posix\_open\_file, 815: /data/db/key.db/WiredTiger.wt: handle-open: open: Operation not permitted

## Expected Result:

Should be able to access the file system, the first instance has the good user/group container security context 1000/1000 but the second instance should have 1001/1001to successfully access the EFS instead of 1000/1000.

## Actual Result:

The second instance should have the security context set to 1001/1001 and the third 1002/1002.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lucasbrazi06](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forums.percona.com/lucasbrazi06/32/17647_2.png) [@lucasbrazi06](https://forums.percona.com/u/lucasbrazi06)\
**Post date:** [August 10, 2024, 5:24pm UTC](https://forums.percona.com/t/percona-mongodb-eks-with-efs-the-second-statefulset-instances-fails-to-access-efs/32196/2 "2024-08-10T17:24:28Z")

</div>

Maybe I should use EBS instead of EFS ???

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lucasbrazi06](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forums.percona.com/lucasbrazi06/32/17647_2.png) [@lucasbrazi06](https://forums.percona.com/u/lucasbrazi06)\
**Post date:** [August 12, 2024, 10:54am UTC](https://forums.percona.com/t/percona-mongodb-eks-with-efs-the-second-statefulset-instances-fails-to-access-efs/32196/3 "2024-08-12T10:54:53Z")

</div>

I recreated the EFS with fixed user/group ID of 1001/1001 using EFS params gid/uid when creating the Storage Class instead of providing a range of user/group IDs (EFS params gidRangeStart/gidRangeEnd) and it’s working.

> <https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/aws-efs-csi-driver/blob/master/docs/README.md>

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Sergey\_Pronin](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forums.percona.com/sergey_pronin/32/14887_2.png) [@Sergey\_Pronin](https://forums.percona.com/u/Sergey_Pronin)\
**Post date:** [August 19, 2024, 8:45am UTC](https://forums.percona.com/t/percona-mongodb-eks-with-efs-the-second-statefulset-instances-fails-to-access-efs/32196/4 "2024-08-19T08:45:57Z")

</div>

@lucasbrazi06 glad that you got it working!

Is there any particular reason why are you using EFS vs EBS?