I am running the ECS cluster that currently has 3 services running on T3 medium instance. Each of those services is running only one task which has a soft memory limit of 1GB, the hard limit is different for each (but that should not be the problem). I will always have enough memory to run one, new deployed task (new one will also take 1GB, and T3 medium will be able to handle it since it has 4GB total). After the new task is up and running, the old one will be stopped and I will have again 1GB free for the new deployment. I did similar to the CPU (2048 CPU, each task has 512, and 512 free for new deployments).
So everything runs fine now, but I am not completely satisfied with this setup for the future. What will happen if I need to add another service with another task? I need to deploy all existing tasks and to modify their task definitions to use less CPU and memory in order to run this new task (and new deployments). I am planning to get a reserved EC2 instance, so it will not be easy to swap the current EC2 instance with the larger one.
Is there a way to spin up another EC2 instance for the same ECS cluster to handle bursts in my tasks? Also deployments, it's not a perfect scenario to have the ability to deploy only one task, and then wait for old to be killed in order to deploy the next one, without downtimes.
And biggest concern, what if I need new service and task, I need again to adjust all others in order to run a new one and deploy others, which is not very maintainable and what if I cannot lower CPU and memory more because I already reached the lowest point in order to run the task smoothly.
I was thinking about having another EC2 instance for the same cluster, that will handle bursts, deployments, and new services/tasks. But not sure if that's possible and if that's the best way of doing this. I was also thinking about Fargate, but this is much more expensive and I cannot afford it for now. What do you think? Any ideas, suggestions, and hints will be helpful since I am desperate to find the best way to avoid the problems mentioned above.
Thanks in advance!
So unfortunately, there is no out of the box solution to ensure that all your tasks run on min possible (i.e. one) instance. You can use our new feature called Capacity Providers (CP), which will allow you to ensure the minimum number of ec2 instances required to run all your tasks. The major difference between CP vs ASG is that CP gives more weight to task placement (where as ASG will scale in/out based on resource utilization which isn't ideal in your case).
However, it's not an ideal solution. Just as you said in your comment, when the service needs to scale out during a deployment, CP will spin up another instance, the new task will be placed on it and once it gets to Running state, the old task will be stopped.
But now you have an "extra" EC2 instance because there is no way to replace a running task. The only way I can think of would be to use a lambda function that drains the new instance, which will move all the service tasks to the other instance. CP will, after about 15 minutes, terminate this instance as there are no tasks are running on it.
A couple caveats:
CP are new, a little rough around the edges, and you can't
delete/modify them. You can only create or deactivate them.
CP needs an underlying ASG and they must have a 1-1 relationship
Make sure to enable managed scaling when creating CP
Choose 100% capacity target
Don't forget to add a default capacity strategy for the cluster
Minimizing EC2 instances used:
If you're using a capacity provider, the 'binpack' placement strategy minimises the number of EC2 hosts that are used.
However, there are some scale-in scenarios where you can end up with a single task running on its own EC2 instance. As Ali mentions in their answer; ECS will not replace this running task, but depending on your setup, it may be fairly easy for you to replace it yourself by configuring your task to voluntarily 'quit'.
In my case; I always have at least 2 tasks running per service. So I just added some logic to my tasks' healthchecks, so they report as unhealthy after ~6 hours. ECS will spot the 'unhealthy' task, remove it from the load balancer, and spin up a replacement (according to the binpack strategy).
Note: If you take this approach; add some variation to your timeout so you're less likely to have all of your tasks expire at the same time. Something like: expiry = now + timedelta(hours=random.uniform(5.5,6.5))
Sharing memory 'headspace' with soft-limits:
If you set both soft and hard memory limits; ECS will place your tasks based on the soft limit. If your tasks' memory usage varies with usage, it's fairly easy to get your EC2 instance to start swapping.
For example: Say you have a task defined with a soft limit of 900mb, and a hard limit of 1800mb. You spin up a service with 4 running instances. ECS provisions all 4 of these instances on a single t3.medium. Notice here that each instance thinks it can safely use up to 1800mb, when in fact there's very little free memory on the host server. When you hit your service with some traffic; each task tries to use some more memory, and your t3.medium is incapacitated as it starts swapping memory to disk. ECS does not recover from this type of failure very well. It notices that the task instances are no longer available, and will attempt to provision replacements, but the capacity provider is very slow to replace the swapping t3.medium.
My suggestion:
Configure your service to auto-scale based on memory usage (this will be a percentage of your soft-limit), for example: a target memory usage of 70%
Configure your tasks' healthchecks so that they report as unhealthy when they are nearing their soft-limit. This way, your tasks still have some headroom for quick spikes of memory usage, while giving your load balancer a chance to drain and gracefully replace tasks that are getting greedy. This is fairly easy to do by reading the value within /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/memory.usage_in_bytes.
Related
Here is the scenario:
We are running Docker containers in an AWS ECS cluster. Previously, we were not using any placement strategy for containers. For minimizing the number of instances within the cluster, we tried introducing binpack placement strategy. After that, whenever we try to deploy containers multiple at a time(in parallel), the instances do not autoscale and stay at the minimum limit set for them. We are not sure what went wrong. Most of the services are not reaching steady state due to this. For now, we have removed binpack, and again it has started working perfectly and we are able to deploy in parallel.
Though, there is no issue when we deploy one service at a time and everything seems fine.
We are using t2.large type instances in our case.
Instance auto-scaling is happening based on memory reservation(>80% for 1 minute).
Looking at the graph, we can check memory threshold is not getting reached. It crosses >80 threshold only for few seconds, and then again goes down. This is a strange behaviour according to me.
Does binpack does not support t2 type instances? Or is there any other case I am missing?
I've decided to start playing with AWS ECS service, and created cluster and one service my issue is that I want to connect it to the AWS auto scaling group.
I have followed the following guide.
The guide works, my issue is that its a total waste of money.
The guide says that I need to add machine when the total amount of CPU units that my services reserve is above 75, but in reality my services always reserve 100%
because I don't want waste money, also its pretty useless to put 3 nodejs tasks on 2 cpu machine, there is no hard-limit anyway.
I am breaking my head on it for few days now, I have no idea how to make them work together properly
EDIT:
Currently this is what happens:
CPU getting above 75%, Service scaling is created 2 new tasks on the same server, which means that now I have 1 instance with 4 tasks
Instance reservation is now 100%, Auto Scaling Group is creating new instance
Once the new instance is created, Service Scaling is removing 2 tasks from the old instance and adding 2 new tasks to the new instance
Its just me or this whole process looks like waste of time? is this how it really should be or (probably) i done something wrong?
I think you are missing a few insights.
For ECS autoscaling to work properly you also have to set up scaling on a ECS Service level.
Then, the scaling flow would look like this:
ECS Service is reaching 100% used CPU and has 100% reserved CPU
ECS Service scales by starting an additional task, making the reserved CPU total at 200%
Auto scaling group sees there is more Reserved capacity than available capacity and launches a new machine.
In addition, you can perfectly run multiple nodejes tasks on a 2 CPU machine. Especially in a micro service environment, these nodejs services can be quite small (128 CPU for example) and still run perfectly fine all together on the same host machine.
Eventually, I figured, what I want to do is not possible.
It is not possible to create a resource-optimized cluster with ECS like in Kubernetes.
(unless of course if you write some magic with lambda)
Service auto-scaling and auto-scaling groups don't work together, you can, however, make it work perfectly with fargate but its expansive, the main issue is that you don't have a trigger to cluster reservation above 100%
I've now learnt that when I start a new EC2 instance it has a certain number of CPU credits due to which it's performance is high when it starts processing but gradually reduces over time as the credits run out. Past that point, the instance runs at which appears to be the baseline CPU utilisation rate. To numerate, when I started the EC2 instance (t2.nano), Cloudwatch reported around 80% CPU utilisation gradually decreasing down to 5%.
Now I'm happy to use one of the better instance types pending the instance limit request. But whilst that is in progress, I'd like to know whether the issue of reducing performance over time will still hold even with the better instance type?
Would I require a dedicated host setup if I wish to ensure I get consistent CPU utilisation? The only problem I can see here is that I'm running a SQS worker queue and Elastic Beanstalk allows us to easily setup a worker environment which reads messages from the queue. From what I've read and from looking at the configuration options available in Elastic Beanstalk, I don't think I'll be able to launch instances into a dedicated host directly. Most of my reading has lead me to believe that I'll have to learn how to use a VPC. Would that be correct?
So I guess my questions are - would simply increasing the instance type to a more powerful instance guarantee consistent CPU utilisation performance or is a dedicated host required and if so, is it possible to set up one with Elastic Beanstalk or would it have to be setup manually and if it is set up manually can it be configured to work with an SQS queue automatically?
If you want consistent CPU performance, you should avoid the burstable performance instances (the T2 family). All other families of instances (M5, C5, etc) will have consistent CPU performance over time. You can use any instance family with Elastic Beanstalk. No need for a dedicated host.
I have a service running on AWS EC2 Container Service (ECS). My setup is a relatively simple one. It operates with a single task definition and the following details:
Desired capacity set at 2
Minimum healthy set at 50%
Maximum available set at 200%
Tasks run with 80% CPU and memory reservations
Initially, I am able to get the necessary EC2 instances registered to the cluster that holds the service without a problem. The associated task then starts running on the two instances. As expected – given the CPU and memory reservations – the tasks take up almost the entirety of the EC2 instances' resources.
Sometimes, I want the task to use a new version of the application it is running. In order to make this happen, I create a revision of the task, de-register the previous revision, and then update the service. Note that I have set the minimum healthy percentage to require 2 * 0.50 = 1 instance running at all times and the maximum healthy percentage to permit up to 2 * 2.00 = 4 instances running.
Accordingly, I expected 1 of the de-registered task instances to be drained and taken offline so that 1 instance of the new revision of the task could be brought online. Then the process would repeat itself, bringing the deployment to a successful state.
Unfortunately, the cluster does nothing. In the events log, it tells me that it cannot place the new tasks, even though the process I have described above would permit it to do so.
How can I get the cluster to perform the behavior that I am expecting? I have only been able to get it to do so when I manually register another EC2 instance to the cluster and then tear it down after the update is complete (which is not desirable).
I have faced the same issue where the tasks used to get stuck and had no space to place them. Below snippet from AWS doc on updating a service helped me to make the below decision.
If your service has a desired number of four tasks and a maximum
percent value of 200%, the scheduler may start four new tasks before
stopping the four older tasks (provided that the cluster resources
required to do this are available). The default value for maximum
percent is 200%.
We should have the cluster resources available / container instances available to have the new tasks get started so they can start and the older one can drain.
These are the things i do
Before doing a service update add like 20% capacity to your cluster. You can use the ASG (Autoscaling group) commandline and from the desired capacity add 20% to your cluster. This way you will have some additional instance during deployment.
Once you have the instance the new tasks will start spinning up quickly and the older one will start draining.
But does this mean i will have extra container instances ?
Yes, during the deployment you will add some instances but as the older tasks drain they will hang around. The way to remove them is
Create a MemoryReservationLow alarm (~70% threshold in your case) for like 25 mins (longer duration to be sure that we have over commissioned). As the reservation will go low once you have those extra server not being used they can be removed.
I have seen this before. If your port mapping is attempting to map a static host port to the container within the task, you need more cluster instances.
Also this could be because there is not enough available memory to meet the memory (soft or hard) limit requested by the container within the task.
When a Ec2 Container Engine cluster is created, it creates a Compute Engine managed instance group to manage the created instances. These instances are from Ec2 service, which means, they are Virtual machines.
But we know that containers represent a new way to deploy containers based on operating-system-level virtualization rather than hardware virtualization
like VMs that are heavyweight and non-portable, isn't a contradiction? correct me if I'm wrong.
We use containers because they are extremely fast (either in boot time or tasks execution) compared to VMs, and they save a lot of space storage. So if we have one node(vm) that can supports 4 containers max, our clients can rapidly lunch 4 containers, but beyond this number, Ec2 autoscaler will need to lunch a new node(vm) to support upcoming containers, which incurs some tasks delay.
Is it impossible to launch containers over physical machines?
And what do you recommend for running critical time execution tasks?
I believe you are working under an erroneous assumption that ECS scales the virtual machines ("container instances" -- the instances where containers will run) directly with task demand.
If that were true, you would have a point, because the cluster would be sluggish and unresponsive any time insufficient container instance resources were not immediately available.
ECS doesn't do that, the presence of the Auto Scaling Group notwithstanding.
Depending on the Amazon EC2 instance types you use in your clusters, and quantity of container instances you have in a cluster, your tasks have a limited amount of resources that they can use when they are run. ECS monitors the resources available in the cluster to work with the schedulers to place tasks. If your cluster runs low on any of these resources, such as memory, you will eventually be unable to launch more tasks until you add more container instances, reduce the number of desired tasks in a service, or stop some of the running tasks in your cluster to free up the constrained resource. (emphasis added)
http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonECS/latest/developerguide/cloudwatch_alarm_autoscaling.html
So, no... it doesn't launch the new tasks slowly when you are out of capacity. It doesn't launch them at all.
But don't get ahead of me.
The link above explains, with examples, how scaling of the virtual machines (container instances) is designed to actually work.
Of course, you don't have to make them adaptively scalable at all. You can go with your physical server model (note: I say physical server model -- meaning a fixed, inelastic pool of resources, on always-running virtual machines, since virtual machines is what EC2 provides), and just choose how many instances you wait to have running at all times, essentially emulating physical servers. If you wanted, say, 8 container instances, the "auto scaling group" would maintain exactly 8 at all times, creating replacements if, say, one of them experienced a hardware failure. That "auto" accomplishment would be maintaining the status quo. And, of course, in this configuration, you could manually reconfigure from 8 to, say, 12 and the "auto" accomplishment would be that you'd automatically get 4 new ones to add to the existing 8.
But the idea of how the service is ideally used is that your group of virtual machines scales up and down by rules you devise, to anticipate the resources needed by future tasks -- or a future lack of tasks.
In the example given, memory reservation is the trigger:
When the memory reservation of your cluster rises above 75% (meaning that only 25% of the memory in your cluster is available to for new tasks to reserve), the alarm triggers the Auto Scaling group to add another instance and provide more resources for your tasks and services.
It triggers the addition of more container instances so that you always have whatever you have determined to be the appropriate threshold of surplus capacity already online by the time you need it.
Of course, memory is just one resource, and 75% is just an arbitrary threshold chosen for the example.
Auto Scaling Groups can scale on a variety of triggers -- the phrase of the moon, the price trends in the stock market, whatever is appropriate to anticipating your desired amount of surplus capacity and can be quantified and monitored can be used... but this service does not scale itself directly by the actual attempt to launch a new task when the task can't be launched due to insufficient resources.
Herein lies the flaw in your original argument.
Why virtual machines? Simply enough, because when you destroy a virtual machine because the capacity is not expected to be needed, you stop paying for it.
In this light, perhaps you'll agree that this is not a weakness, it's a strength. Physical servers never stop costing you when you are not using them.
You don't need to pay anything at all for capacity you will not be needing with VMs -- you only have to pay for the capacity you're using plus the amount you need to keep immediately available to handle anticipated demand.
You can have as much idle surplus immediately ready as you are willing to pay for, or you can maximize savings by allowing as little surplus capacity as you are comfortable with being able to access without delay.