I am building a lab utility to deploy my teams development environments (testing / stress etc).
At present, the pipeline is as follows:
Trigger pipeline via HTTP request, args contain the distribution, web server and web server version using ARGs that are passed too multi stage dockerfiles.
Dockerx builds the container (if it doesn't exist in ECR)
Pipeline job pushes that container to ECR (if it doesn't already exist).
Terraform deploys the container using Fargate, sets up VPCs and a ALB to handle ingress externally.
FQDN / TLS is then provisioned on ...com
Previously when I've made tools like this that create environments, environments were managed and deleted solely at project level, given each environment had it's own project, given this is best practice for isolation and billing tracking purposes, however given the organisation security constraints of my company, I am limited to only 1 project wherein I can create all the resources.
This means I have to find a way to manage/deploy 30 (the max) environments in one project without it being a bit of a clustered duck.
More or less, I am looking for a way that allows me to keep track, and tear down environments (autonomously) and their associated resources relevant to a certain identifier, most likely these environments can be separated by resource tags/groups.
It appears the CDKTF/Pulumi looks like a neat way of achieving some form of "high-level" structure, but I am struggling to find ways to use them to do what I want. If anyone can recommend an approach, it'd be appreciated.
I have not tried anything yet, mainly because this is something that requires planning before I start work on it (don't like reaching deadends ha).
Related
Hi I am using the serverless framework to develop my application and I need to set it up in a local environment I am using API gateway, Lambda, VPC , SNS, SQS, and DB is connected via VPC peering, currently, everytime I am deploying and testing my code and its tedious process and takes 5 mins to deploy, Is there any way to set up a local environment to have everything in one place
It should be possible in theory, but it is not an easy thing to do. There are products like LocalStack that offer exactly this.
But, I would not recommend going that route. Ultimately, by design this will always be a huge cat and mouse game. AWS introduces a new feature or changes some minor detail of their implementation and products like LocalStack need to catch up. Furthermore, you will always only get an "approximation" of the "actual cloud". It never won't be a 100% match.
I would think there is a lot of work involved to get products like LocalStack working properly with your setup and have it running well.
Therefore, I would propose to invest the same time into proper developer experience within the "actual cloud". That is what we do: every developer deploys their version of the project to AWS.
This is also not trivial, but the end result is not a "fake version" of the cloud that might or might not reflect the "real cloud".
The key to achieve this is Infrastructure as code and as much automation as possible. We use Terraform and Makefiles which works very well for us. If done properly, we only ever build and deploy what we changed. The result is that changes can be deployed in seconds to AWS and the developer can test the result either through the Makefile itself or using the AWS console.
And another upside of this is, that in theory you need to do all the same work anyway for your continuous deployment, so ultimately you are reducing work by not having to maintain local deployments and cloud deployments.
I'm presently looking into GCP's Deployment Manager to deploy new projects, VMs and Cloud Storage buckets.
We need a web front end that authenticated users can connect to in order to deploy the required infrastructure, though I'm not sure what Dev Ops tools are recommended to work with this system. We have an instance of Jenkins and Octopus Deploy, though I see on Google's Configuration Management page (https://cloud.google.com/solutions/configuration-management) they suggest other tools like Ansible, Chef, Puppet and Saltstack.
I'm supposing that through one of these I can update something simple like a name variable in the config.yaml file and deploy a project.
Could I also ensure a chosen name for a project, VM or Cloud Storage bucket fits with a specific naming convention with one of these systems?
Which system do others use and why?
I use Deployment Manager, as all 3rd party tools are reliant upon the presence of GCP APIs, as well as trusting that those APIs are in line with the actual functionality of the underlying GCP tech.
GCP is decidedly behind the curve on API development, which means that even if you wanted to use TF or whatever, at some point you're going to be stuck inside the SDK, anyway. So that's why I went with Deployment Manager, as much as I wanted to have my whole infra/app deployment use other tools that I was more comfortable with.
To specifically answer your question about validating naming schema, what you would probably want to do is write a wrapper script that uses the gcloud deployment-manager subcommand. Do your validation in the wrapper script, then run the gcloud deployment-manager stuff.
Word of warning about Deployment Manager: it makes troubleshooting very difficult. Very often it will obscure the error that can help you actually establish the root cause of a problem. I can't tell you how many times somebody in my office has shouted "UGGH! Shut UP with your Error 400!" I hope that Google takes note from my pointed survey feedback and refactors DM to pass the original error through.
Anyway, hope this helps. GCP has come a long way, but they've still got work to do.
I am looking into Cloud Run to host my new app, and I am wondering if it is possible to generate a separate URL for each git branch.
I use Netlify to host my other app. When it is connected to GitHub (or other VCS services), it builds the source code in a branch and deploy it to a URL that is specific to the branch.
Can it be done easily or do I have to write some logic?
Or do you think AWS amplify or some other services are of better fit?
The concept of Cloud Run and URLs is quite simple:
https://<service-name>-<project hash>.<region>.run.app
If your project and region are the same for all the branches, you simply have to deploy a different service for each branch to get a different URL.
That was for Cloud Run. Now, I'm not sure that Netlify is compliant with Cloud Run. I found no documentation on this.
This answer won't be directly useful to you but I think it's relevant and worth mentioning
The open source Knative API (and implementation actually exposes a "tag" feature while splitting the traffic between multiple revisions: https://github.com/knative/docs/blob/master/docs/serving/spec/knative-api-specification-1.0.md#traffictarget
This feature is not currently supported on Cloud Run fully managed, but it will be.
By tagging releases this way, you could define tag: v1 and tag: v2 in your traffic configuration, and you would get new URLs like:
https://v1-SERVICE_NAME...run.app
https://v2-SERVICE_NAME...run.app
that directly go to these specific versions.
And the interesting thing is, these revisions you specified in the traffic: block of the Service object do not have to receive any traffic (you can say traffic percentage: 0) but it would still create a domain name like I showed above to the inactive revisions of your app.
So when Cloud Run fully-managed supports tag fields, you can actually achieve this, although it will be less out-of-the-box experience than Netlify.
I am trying to build out our AWS environments using Terraform but am hitting some issues scaling. I have a repository of just modules that I want to use repeatedly when building my environments and a second repository just to handle the actual implementations of those modules.
I am aware of HashiCorp's Github page that has an example but there, each environment is one state file. I want to split environments out but then have multiple state files within each environment. When the state files get big, applying small updates takes way too long.
Every example I've seen where multiple state files are used, the Terraform files are extremely un-DRY and not ideal.
I would prefer to be able to have different variable values between environments but have the same configuration.
Has anyone ever done anything like this? Am I missing something? I'm a bit frustrated because every Terraform example is never at scale and it makes it hard for n00b such as myself to start down the right path. Any help or suggestions is very much appreciated!
The idea of environment unfortunately tends to mean different things to different people and organizations.
To some, it's simply creating multiple copies of some infrastructure -- possibly only temporary, or possibly long-lived -- to allow for testing and experimentation in one without affecting another (probably production) environment.
For others, it's a first-class construct in a deployment architecture, with the environment serving as a container into which other applications and infrastructure are deployed. In this case, there are often multiple separate Terraform configurations that each have a set of resources in each environment, sharing data to create a larger system from smaller parts.
Terraform has a feature called State Environments that serves the first of these use-cases by allowing multiple named states to exist concurrently for a given configuration, and allowing the user to switch between them using the terraform env commands to focus change operations on a particular state.
The State Environments feature alone is not sufficient for the second use-case, since it only deals with multiple states in a single configuration. However, it can be used in conjunction with other Terraform features, making use of the ${terraform.env} interpolation value to deal with differences, to allow multiple state environments within a single configuration to interact with a corresponding set of state environments within another configuration.
One "at scale" approach (relatively-speaking) is described in my series of articles Terraform Environment+Application Pattern, which describes a generalization of a successful deployment architecture with many separate applications deployed together to form an environment.
In that pattern, the environments themselves (which serve as the "container" for applications, as described above) are each created with a separate Terraform configuration, allowing each to differ in the details of how it is configured, but they each expose data in a standard way to allow multiple applications -- each using the State Environments feature -- to be deployed once for each environment using the same configuration.
This compromise leads to some duplication between the environment configurations -- which can be mitgated by using Terraform modules to share patterns between them -- but these then serve as a foundation to allow other configurations to be generalized and deployed multiple times without such duplication.
I'm new to the configuration management and deployment tools. I have to implement a Continuous Delivery/Continuous Deployment tool for one of the most interesting projects I've ever put my hands on.
First of all, individually, I'm comfortable with AWS, I know what Ansible is, the logic behind it and its purpose. I do not have same level of understanding of Docker but I got the idea. I went through a lot of Internet resources, but I can't get the the big picture.
What I've been struggling is how they fit together. Using Ansible, I can manage my Infrastructure as Code; building EC2 instances, installing packages... I can even deploy a full application by pulling its code, modify config files and start web server. Docker is, itself, a tool that packages an application and ensures that it can be run wherever you deploy it.
My problems are:
How does Docker (or Ansible and Docker) extend the Continuous Integration process!?
Suppose we have a source code repository, the team members finish working on a feature and they push their work. Jenkins detects this, runs all the acceptance/unit/integration test suites and if they all passed, it declares it as a stable build. How Docker fits here? I mean when the team pushes their work, does Jenkins have to pull the Docker file source coded within the app, build the image of the application, start the container and run all the tests against it or it runs the tests the classic way and if all is good then it builds the Docker image from the Docker file and saves it in a private place?
Should Jenkins tag the final image using x.y.z for example!?
Docker containers configuration :
Suppose we have an image built by Jenkins stored somewhere, how to handle deploying the same image into different environments, and even, different configurations parameters ( Vhosts config, DB hosts, Queues URLs, S3 endpoints, etc...) What is the most flexible way to deal with this issue without breaking Docker principles? Are these configurations backed in the image when it gets build or when the container based on it is started, if so how are they injected?
Ansible and Docker:
Ansible provides a Docker module to manage Docker containers. Assuming I solved the problems mentioned above, when I want to deploy a new version x.t.z of my app, I tell Ansible to pull that image from where it was stored on, start the app container, so how to inject the configuration settings!? Does Ansible have to log in the Docker image, before it's running ( this sounds insane to me ) and use its Jinja2 templates the same way with a classic host!? If not, how is this handled?!
Excuse me if it was a long question or if I misspelled something, but this is my thinking out loud. I'm blocked for the past two weeks and I can't figure out the correct workflow. I want this to be a reference for future readers.
Please, it would very helpful to read your experiences and solutions because this looks like a common workflow.
I would like to answer in parts
How does Docker (or Ansible and Docker) extend the Continuous Integration process!?
Since docker images same everywhere, you use your docker images as if they are production images. Therefore, when somebody committed a code, you build your docker image. You run tests against it. When all tests pass, you tag that image accordingly. Since docker is fast, this is a feasible workflow.
Also docker changes are incremental; therefore, your images will have minimal impact on storage. Also when your tests fail, you may also choose to save that image too. In this way, developer will pull that image and investigate easily why your tests failed. Developer may choose to run tests in their machine too since docker images in jenkins and their machine are not different.
What this brings that all developers will have same environment, same version of all software since you decide which one will be used in docker images. I have come across to bugs that are due to differences between developer machines. For example in the same operating system, unicode settings may affect your code. But in docker images all developers will test against same settings, same version software.
Docker containers configuration :
If you are using a private repository, and you should use one, then configuration changes will not affect hard disk space much. Therefore except security configurations, such as db passwords, you can apply configuration changes to docker images(Baking the Configuration into the Container). Then you can use ansible to apply not-stored configurations to deployed images before/after startup using environment variables or Docker Volumes.
https://dantehranian.wordpress.com/2015/03/25/how-should-i-get-application-configuration-into-my-docker-containers/
Does Ansible have to log in the Docker image, before it's running (
this sounds insane to me ) and use its Jinja2 templates the same way
with a classic host!? If not, how is this handled?!
No, ansible will not log in the Docker image, but ansible with Jinja2 templates can be used to change dockerfile. You can change dockerfile with templates and can inject your configuration to different files. Tag your files accordingly and you have configured images to spin up.
Regarding your question about handling multiple environment configurations using the same Docker image, I have been planning on using a Service Discovery tool like Consul as a centralized config/property management tool. So, when you start your container up, you set an ENV var that tells it what application it is (appID), and what environment config it should use (ex: MyApplication:Dev) and it will pull its config from Consul at startup. I still have to investigate the security around Consul (as if we are storing DB connection credentials in there for example, how do we restrict who can query/update those values). I don't want to just use this for containers, but all apps in general. Another cool capability is to change the config value in Consul and have a hook back into your app to apply the changes immediately (maybe like a REST endpoint on your app to push changes down to and dynamically apply it). Of course your app has to be written to support this!
You might be interested in checking out Martin Fowler's blog articles on immutable infrastructure and on Phoenix servers.
Although not a complete solution, I have suggestions for two of your issues. Although they might not be perfect, these are the practices we are using in our workflow, and prove themselves so far.
Defining different environments - supposing you've written a different Ansible role for each environment you launch, we define an environment variable setting the environment we wish the container to belong to. We then download the suitable configuration file from an S3 bucket using the env variable set before into the container (which should be possible if you supply AWS creds or give your server an IAM role) and inject these parameters into the code when building it.
Ansible doesn't need to log into the docker app, but the solution is a bit tricky. I've tried two ways of tackling this problem, and both aren't ideal. The first one is to download the configuration file as part of the docker image command line, and build the app on container startup. While this solution works - it breaches the Docker philosophy and makes the image highly prone to build errors.
Another solution is pushing several images to your docker hub repo, and then pulling the appropriate image according to the environment at hand.
In a broader stroke, I've tried launching our app completely with Ansible and it was hell, many configuration steps are tricky and get trickier when you try to implement them as a playbook. When I switched to maintaining the severs alone with Ansible, and deploying the app itself with Docker things got a lot easier.