Consider a scenario with two identical Cloud Run services ("Real Time App") deployed in two different regions, let's say EU and US. These services use Firestore for real time communication, and minimizing latency is important. Since Firestore only allows specifying one region per project, each Cloud Run service is deployed in its own project and uses its regional Firestore instance. It is not needed for a service in the US to access Firestore data in the EU and vice versa.
Is there a way to deploy a global HTTPS load balancer to route requests to Cloud Run service closest to the user when services are defined in different projects?
I attempted a setup with a shared VPC between a Host "Global" project (in the US) and 2 service projects (EU and US). I created a Cloud Run Service, Network Endpoint Group (NEG), and Backend Service in each regional project. I then attempted to create a Global forwarding rule, Target HTTPs proxy, and URL Map in the host project. However, the URL Map cannot be fed a backend service in another project, complaining that:
Cross-project references for this resource are not allowed.
Indeed, per the Shared VPC Architecture and Cross-project service referencing section of the documentation it seems that:
Cross-project service referencing is not supported for the global external HTTP(S) load balancer
and that, if I understood correctly, the following rules apply:
The NEG must be defined in the same project as the Cloud Run Service
The Backend Service must be in the same project as the NEG
The Target HTTP(s) Proxy and associating URL map must be in the same project as the Backend Service
The Forwarding Rule must be in the same project as the Backend Service
essentially requiring the entire chain to be defined in one project.
Are there recommended workarounds for this scenario?
One solution I can think of is to create a "Router" Cloud Run Service in the Host global project behind a load balancer, with multi region deployment. Its sole purpose is to respond to the client with the regional URL endpoint of the closest "Real Time App" Cloud Run service.
I am wondering whether there is a more elegant solution, though.
Related
The current setup is as follows:
I have a Cloud Run service, which acts as "back-end", which needs to reach external services but wants to be reached ONLY by the second Cloud Run instance. which acts as a "front-end", which needs to reach auth0 and the "back-end" and be reached by any client with a browser.
I recognize that the setup is not optimal, but I've inherited as is and we cannot migrate to another solution (maybe k8n). I'm trying to make this work with the least amount of impact on the infrastructure and, ideally, without having to touch the services themselves.
What I've tried is to restrict the ingress of the back-end service to INTERNAL and place two serverless VPC connectors (one per service), so that the front-end service would be able to reach the back-end but no one else could.
But I've encountered a huge issue: if I set the egress of the front-end all on the VPC it works, but now the front-end cannot reach auth0 and therefore the users cannot authenticate. If I place the egress as "mixed" (only internal ip ranges go through the VPC) the Google Run URL (*.run.app) is resolved not through the VPC and therefore it returns a big bad 403.
What I tried so far:
Placing a load balancer in front of the back-end service. But the serverless NEG only supports the global http load balancer and I'd need an internal one if I wanted an internal ip to resolve against
Trying to see if the VPC accessor itself MAYBE provided an internal (static) ip, but it doesn't seem so
Someone in another question suggested a "MIG as a proxy" but I haven't managed to figure that out (Can I run Cloud Run applications on a private IP (inside dedicated VPC network)?)
Fooled around with the Gateway API, but it seems that I'd have to provide a openAPI specification for the back-end, and I'm still under the delusion that this might be resolved with a cheaper (in terms of effort) approach.
So, I get that the Cloud Run instance cannot possibly have an internal IP by itself, but is there any kind of GCP product that can act as a proxy? Can someone elaborate on the "MIG as a proxy" approach (Managed Instance Group? Of what, though?), which might be the solution I'm looking for? (Sadly, I do not have the reputation needed to comment on that question or I would have).
Any kind of pointer is, as always, deeply appreciated.
You are designing this wrong. Use Cloud Run's identity-based access control instead of trying to route traffic. Google IAP (Identity Aware Proxy) will block all traffic that is not authorized.
Authenticating service-to-service
I have read other questions about this that all mention enabling service discovery, but my issue is a little different as to how to go about setting this up for my current Fargate deployments.
I have four spring boot api containers built via Gradle, pushed to ECR, and deployed in ECS Fargate with Terraform IaC setting up the appropriate resources. Three of these containerized apis have environment variables set within them to reference the fourth container, thus making an external api call outside of the container to that one service. DNS and 443 load balancer is setup for these deployments.
I have created a new service in the cluster containing the api that needs to be discovered. I have enabled service discover and created a local CloudMap A record for the api and then set each environment variable in the other containzers to use that local A record url, e.g., ecsservicename.local. Additionally I have tried to dig the service that I am connecting to in the other apis and that returns an IP so I am sure that that is working.
My questions are as follows:
(1) Since really only one services should be picked up by the others, was it correct to set service discovery on that one api and not the others or should I set up service discovery on all the other apis?
(2) Even if route53 is setup should this be an A record or SRV? I was confused by the documentation as to when to use which on aws.
(3) Is there a better or easier approach to use for inter-container communication that I am missing?
That's correct. Discovery should be set only for the one service. Other discoveries are not needed, as you are not inter-connection to those other services.
SRV also gives port, so from docs:
if the task definition that your service task specifies uses the bridge or host network mode, an SRV record is the only supported DNS record type.
I think your architecture is well thought and can't think of anything "easier" or better.
I'd like to have my Google Cloud Run services privately communicate with one another over non-HTTP and/or without having to add bearer authentication in my code.
I'm aware of this documentation from Google which describes how you can do authenticated access between services, although it's obviously only for HTTP.
I think I have a general idea of what's necessary:
Create a custom VPC for my project
Enable the Serverless VPC Connector
What I'm not totally clear on is:
Is any of this necessary? Can Cloud Run services within the same project already see each other?
How do services address one another after this?
Do I gain the ability to use simpler by-convention DNS names? For example, could I have each service in Cloud Run manifest on my VPC as a single first level DNS name like apione and apitwo rather than a larger DNS name that I'd then have to hint in through my deployments?
If not, is there any kind of mechanism for services to discover names?
If I put my managed Cloud SQL postgres database on this network, can I control its DNS name?
Finally, are there any other gotchas I might want to be aware of? You can assume my use case is very simple, two or more long lived services on Cloud Run, doing non-HTTP TCP/UDP communications.
I also found a potentially related Google Cloud Run feature request that is worth upvoting if this isn't currently possible.
Cloud Run services are only reachable through HTTP request. you can't use other network protocol (SSH to log into instances for example, or TCP/UDP communication).
However, Cloud Run can initiate these kind of connection to external services (for instance Compute Engine instances deployed in your VPC, thanks to the serverless VPC Connector).
the serverless VPC connector allow you to make a bridge between the Google Cloud managed environment (where live the Cloud Run (and Cloud Functions/App Engine) instances) and the VPC of your project where you have your own instances (Compute Engine, GKE node pools,...)
Thus you can have a Cloud Run service that reach a Kubernetes pods on GKE through a TCP connection, if it's your requirement.
About service discovery, it's not yet the case but Google work actively on that and Ahmet (Google Cloud Dev Advocate on Cloud Run) has released recently a tool for that. But nothing really build in.
Hello and thanks in advance.
First I want to provide some context to make answering my question easier.
We are using Google Cloud.
We got to a situation when our needs to be able to deploy updates easily for various parts of application bumped into our monolith architectures limitations.
Our app is not super big, but it already has 2 physical services - backend (scope being updated), and caching server which caches data and makes search in a mongo-like way over data from Google Datastore.
We have 2 options here.
"plugins" - like nanoservices running within same process which are developed in a way that these nanoservices do not know they are on the same process, all they know is a set of "plugins shell API" injected at activation of a nanoservice code. This shell gives the nanoservice access to a database, logging, configuration, routes registration, control events like refresh pages map and some metadata like website root url and root of static content deployed as supply stuff for a service version. Like https://static.server.com/deployments/foo/v2
standard microservices on kubernetes where same API mentioned exposed to each service via "shell client" package deployed as part of container image.
In short, this is a common "infrastructure vs library" dilemma, often mentioned in articles about microservices i read.
For library approach I have some vision already on how to implement all that including hot modules replacement without stopping server but the more i read about kubernetes the stronger I feel that I am inventing kubernetes (or similar) wheel.
How I imagine that:
1) there is a router service which is single service exposed outside from the cluster. When a page is requested, and this service attached to the load balancer we already have as backend.
It will handle authentication/authorization of outside requests, and pick the page to be rendered or API endpoint to be invoked. When a page requested, the related template is loaded, and data for pre-rendering is picked by calling related endpoint exposed by module service. When public API endpoint is picked, the matching service endpoint is called.
There are few services, including:
caching service (that service which deployed now at separate servers group, and what
updates service, which process the module services version switch and provides API to do so via some UI for admins.
modules services (one per modules). Each module exposes endpoints for providing preloaded pages data, endpoint to give list of pages routes to be registered, API endpoints implementations, and endpoint to list exposed API routes to be invoked through router service.
router service which process external requests and dispatch them across other services when appropriate using cached routes map, updated in case if one of internal services broadcasts pages map refresh event, e. g. updates service.
What is stopping me from starting to use kubernetes right away is the lack of knowledge about how to implement the following scenarios:
1) only 1 microservice must be exposed outside cluster, the "routing service".
2) reuse builtin services discovery etc to communicate with services within cluster like caching server.
3) Cluster's router service would be attached to cloud load balancer we already have as a backend.
In my opinion, you should have a look at NGINX Ingress Controller to build your routing scheme, more information you can find here and here.
EDIT In addition, you can try some other ingress controllers and among them Istio and Traefik definitely worth your attention as alternative solutions to NGINX Ingress Controller.
I have been working with spring and now would like to learn spring boot and microservices. I understand what microservice is all about and how it works. While going through docs i came across many things used to develop microservices along with spring boot which i am very much confused.
I have listed the systems below.and the questions:
Netflix Eureka - I understand this is service discovery platform.
All services will be registered to eureka server and all
microservices are eureka clients. Now my doubt is , without having
an API gateway is there any use with this service registry ? This is
to understand the actual use of service registry.
ZUULApi gateway- I understand ZUUL can be used as API gateway which is basically a load balancer , that calls appropriate
microservice corresponding to request URL. iS that assumption
correct? will the api gateway interact with Eureka for getting the
appropriate microservice?
NGINX - I have read NGINX can also be used as API gateway? Is that possible? Also i read some where else like NGINX can be used as a service registry , that is as an alternate for Eureka ! Thus which is right? Api gateway or service registry or both? I know nginx is a webserver and reverse proxies can be powerfully configured.
AWS api gateway - Is this can also be used as an alternate for ZUUL?
RIBBON - for what ribbon is used? I didn't understand !
AWS ALB- This can also be used for load balancing. Thus do we need ZUUL if we have AWS ALB?
Please help
without having an API gateway is there any use with this service registry ?
Yes. For example you can use it to locate (IP and port) of all your microservices. This comes in handy for devops type work. For example, at one project I worked on, we used Eureka to find all instances of our microservices and ping them for their status (/health, /info).
I understand ZUUL can be used as API gateway which is basically a load balancer , that calls appropriate microservice corresponding to request URL. iS that assumption correct?
Yes but it can do a lot more. Essentially because Zuul is more of a framework/library that you turn into a microservice, you can code it to implement any kind of routing logic you can come up with. It is very powerful in that sense. For example, lets say you want to change how you route based on time of day or any other external factors, with Zuul you can do it.
will the api gateway interact with Eureka for getting the appropriate microservice?
Yes. You configure Zuul to point to Eureka. It becomes a client to Eureka and even subscribes to Eureka for realtime updates (which instances have joined or left).
I have read NGINX can also be used as API gateway? Also i read some where else like NGINX can be used as a service registry , that is as an alternate for Eureka ! Thus which is right? Api gateway or service registry or both?
Nginx is pretty powerful and can do API gateway type work. But there are some major differences. AFAIK, microservices cannot dynamically register with Nginx, please correct me if I am wrong... as they can with Eureka. Second, while I know Nginx is highly (very highly) configurable, I suspect its configuration abilities do not come close to Zuul's routing capabilities (due to having the whole Java language at your disposal within Zuul to code your routing logic). It could be the case that there are service discovery solutions that work with Nginx. So Nginx will take care of the routing and such, but service discovery will still require a solution.
Is this can also be used as an alternate for ZUUL?
Yes AWS API Gateway can be used as a Zuul replacement of sorts. The issue here, just like Nginx, is service discovery. AWS API Gateway lets you apply logic to your routing... though not as open ended as Zuul.
for what ribbon is used?
While you can use the Ribbon library directly, for the most part consider it as an internal dependency of Zuul. It helps Zuul do the simple load balancing that it does. Please note that this project is in maintenance mode and not recommended any more.
This can also be used for load balancing. Thus do we need ZUUL if we have AWS ALB?
You can use ALB with ECS (elastic container service) to replace Eureka/Zuul. ECS will take care of the service discover for you and will map all instances of a particular service to a Target Group. Your ALB routing table can then route to Target Groups based on simple routing rules. The routing rules in ALB are very simple though, but improving over time.
Different systems which can be used for the working of microservices, that comes along with spring boot:
Eureka:
Probably the first microservice to be UP. Eureka is a service registry, means , it knows which ever microservices are running and in which port. Eureka is deploying as a sperate application and we can use #EnableEurekaServer annotation along with #SpringBootAPplication to make that app a eureka server. So our eureka service registery is UP and running. From now on all microservices will be registered in this eureka server by using #EnableDiscoveryClient annotation along with #SpringBootAPplication in all deployed microservices.
Zuul: ZUUL is a load balancer , routing application and reverse proxy server as well. That is before we were using apache for reverse proxy things , now , for microservices we can use ZUUL. Advantage is, in ZUUL we can programatically set configurations, like if /customer/* comes go to this microservice like that. Also ZUUL can act as a load balancer as well , which will pick the appropriate microservice in a round robin fashion. SO how does the ZUUL knows the details of microservices, the answer is eureka. It will work along with eureka to get microservice details. And in fact this ZUUL is also a Eureka client where we should mark using #EnableDiscoveryClient, thats how these 2 apps(Eureka and zuul) linked.
Ribbbon:
Ribbon use for load balancing. This is already available inside ZUUL, in which zuul is using Ribbon for load balancing stuff. Microservices are identified by service-name in properties file. IF we run 2 instances of one microservices in different port, this will be identified by Eureka and along with Ribbon(Inside zuul), requests will be redirected in a balanced way.
Aws ALB , NGINX , AWS Api gateway etc: There are alternatives for all the above mentioned things. Aws is having own load balancer, service discovery , api gateway etc . Not only AWS all cloud platofrms ,like Azure, have these. Its depends which one to use.
Adding a general question as well , How these microservices communicate each other: Using Resttemplate or Feignclient actual rest API can be called or Message queues like Rabbit MQ etc can be used .
Eureka can be used in conjunction with NGINX, which leads to very powerful combination.
I am using it on AWS EC2 environment. Previously instead of NGINX I was using Spring Cloud Gateway and before that Zuul. Depending of the load Spring Cloud Gateway was running on AWS t3.medium or t3.large instances. After moving to NGINX I am using t3.micro (8 times less memory) instance. I am almost sure that I can do the trick and with t3.nano (16 times less memory) instance, but I wanted to be sure that there will be no surprises.
Below are the high level steps what you have to do in order to plug NGINX in the Eureka ecosystem. More details you can find in NGINX With Eureka Instead of Spring Cloud Gateway or Zuul article.
Create a service which can read the configuration of all applications from Eureka and to 'translate' it to NGINX configuration.
Create a cronjob entry which at certain period will read the configuration from the above service and will call the NGINX hot reload
NGINX which will consume the configuration produced from the service and the cronjob and will work as API Gateway