I'm trying to get a single instance of beanstalk up and running. I don't see anyway to forward 443 to 80 without there being a loadbalancer. How do I get this to work? I can no longer access the application when it has been converted to a single instance.
When using single instance the requests will hit the environments EC2 instances immediately since there is no load balancer in between. This means that the web server must be listening to 443 if you have any intention of providing a responses to requests on that port.
I'm assuming you want HTTPS enabled on this single instance environment, this can be configured using the Resources key in your environment configuration as explained here: Configuring Your Application to Terminate HTTPS Connections at the Instance
Related
Background
I have followed this tutorial https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonECS/latest/developerguide/ecs-cli-tutorial-ec2.html, composed a docker compose file, made a website A (compose of 4 containers) up and run serving 1 of my client.
However, now I have another client which I need to host another web site website B using similar strategies as above.
Here is the current running service of ECS / EC2
and here are the containers up and running, serving website A now
Questions & concerns
The website A is now situated as 1 of a service in the EC2 under my only cluster, can I use the same EC2 instance and run website B (as another service of the EC2)?
If so, how are the ports / inbound / outbound traffic being managed? Now website A already occupies port 80, 443, 27017 and 3002 of the EC2 instance for inbound traffic, if website B's containers also run in the same EC2 instances, can I still use port 80, 443, 27017 and 3002 for website B. I have read the docs of ALB (Amazon Load Balancer), seems it can fulfill the requirement, am I at the right track?
And the domain name, through route 53, I have registered a domain www.websiteA.com to serve the 1st website, I have also registered another www.websiteB.com preparing to serve website B, in my case, I guess I need to configure the new domain B pointing to the same EC2 IP?
During my deployment of website B, I do not want to affect the availability of website A, can it be maintained during the process of deploying website B's containers?
I want to clear all the concepts before kick-starting to deploy the website B, appreciate for any help, thank you
Follow-up actions
I come up decided to use AWS application load balancer to solve my issue, and have the following configurations setup.
I first look into load balancer
And configured as follows
I setup a load balancer which listens for requests using HTTP protocol with incoming port 80, whenever there are users access the web server (i.e.: the frontend container), listener will forward that request to the target group (i.e.: http-port-80-access)
And here is the target group (http-port-80-access) which contains a registered target (currently my ec2 instance running the containers), the host port of the container is 32849 which in turn made used by the associated load balancer (web-access-load-balancer) for dynamic port mapping.
I have also configured 1 more rule on top of the default rule, whenever user access url of websiteA, load balancer will forward the request to the target group (http-port-80-access).
All things set, and the healthy test also passed. I then used the following ecs-cli compose service up command to wire up the load balancer with the service
ecs-cli compose --file ./docker-compose-aws-prod.yml --cluster my-ecs-cluster-name --ecs-profile my-ecs-profile --cluster-config my-cluster --project-name my-project --ecs-params ./ecs-params.yml service up --target-group-arn arn:aws:elasticloadbalancing:us-east-2:xxxxxxxxx:targetgroup/http-port-80-access/xxxxxxxx --container-name frontend --container-port 80
where frontend is the service name of the frontend container of website A
However, turn out when I access www.websiteA.com through browser, nothing but ERR_CONNECTION_REFUSED, accessing www.websiteA.com:32849 did accessible, but is not what I desired.
I am wondering which part I configured wrongly
If you are sending traffic directly to the instance then you would have to host on a different port. You should consider using an ALB, which would allow you to use dynamic ports in ECS. The ALB can accept traffic from ports 80 and 443 for different domains and route the traffic to different containers based on things like the domain.
The website A is now situated as 1 of a service in the EC2 under my only cluster, can I use the same EC2 instance and run website B (as another service of the EC2)?
Indeed. However - as you already found out, you have to split the traffic based on something (hostname, path,..). That's where the reverse-proxy comes in play (either managed - ALB, NLB or your own - nginx, haproxy,.. ) .
It's simple for the http traffic (based on the host)
If so, how are the ports / inbound / outbound traffic being managed? Now website A already occupies port 80, 443, 27017 and 3002 of the EC2 instance for inbound traffic, if website B's containers also run in the same EC2 instances, can I still use port 80, 443, 27017 and 3002 for website B.
assuming the ports 27017 and the 3002 are using own binary protocol (not http). You will have handle that.
You can in theory define the port mapping (map different public listening port to these custom ports), but then you need to either use NLB (network load balancer) or expose the ports on hosts public IP. In the latter case I'm not sure with ECS you can guarantee which IP is used (e.g. having multiple worker nodes)
I have read the docs of ALB (Amazon Load Balancer), seems it can fulfill the requirement, am I at the right track?
ALB is layer 7 reverse proxy (http), it is imho the best option for the web access, not for binary protocols.
, I guess I need to configure the new domain B pointing to the same EC2 IP?
that's the plan
During my deployment of website B, I do not want to affect the availability of website A, can it be maintained during the process of deploying website B's containers?
shouldn't be a problem
Run website B on different ports. To allow end users to interact with website B without specify port numbers use a reverse-proxy. See AWS CloudFront.
I have an EC2 instance with a few applications successfully deployed onto it, listening for connections on ports 3000/3001/3002. I can correctly load a web page from it by connecting to its public DNS or public IP on the given port. I.e. curl http://<ec2-ip-address>:3000 works. So I know that the apps are running, and I know that the port bindings/firewall rules/EC2 security groups are all set up correctly to receive connections from the outside world.
I also have an Application Load Balancer, which is supposed to route traffic to the 3 apps depending on the host name, but it always gives me "504 Gateway Time-out". I've checked all the settings but I can't see what's wrong and I'm not really sure how to troubleshoot it from here.
The ALB has a single HTTPS/443 listener, with a cert that's valid for mydomain.com, app1.mydomain.com, app2.mydomain.com, app2.mydomain.com.
The listener has 3 rules, plus the default rule:
Host == app1.mydomain.com => app1-target-group
Host == app2.mydomain.com => app2-target-group
Host == app3.mydomain.com => app3-target-group
Default action (last resort) => default-target-group
Each target group contains only the single EC2 instance, over HTTP, with the following ports:
app1-target-group: 3000
app2-target-group: 3001
app3-target-group: 3002
default-target-group: 3000
Given that I can access the app directly, I'm sure it must be a problem with the way I've configured the ALB/listener/target groups. But the 504 doesn't give me much to go on.
I've tried to turn on access logs to an S3 bucket, but it doesn't seem to be writing anything there. There's a single object called ELBAccessLogTestFile, and no actual logs in the bucket.
EDIT: Some more information... I actually have nginx installed on the EC2 instance, which is where I was previously doing the SSL termination and hostname-to-port mapping/routing. If I change the default-target-group above to point to port 443 over HTTPS, then it works!
So for some reason, routing traffic
- from the ALB to the EC2 instance over HTTPS on port 443 -> OK!
- from the ALB to the EC2 instance over HTTP on port 3000 -> Broken!
But again, I can hit the instance directly on HTTP/3000 from my laptop.
Communication between resources in the same security group is not open by default. Security group membership alone does not provide special access. You still need to open the ports in the security group to allow other resources in the security group to access those ports. You can specify the security group ID in the rule's source field if you don't want to open it up beyond the resources in the security group.
I have en ELB with multiple EC2 instances registered in target groups. I am using port a php application which is running properly. It has SSL.
I want to use port 8000 for my node application. What I would like to do is I want to forward my-elb-address:8000 to any-ec2-ip:8000. So when i access the domain attached to ELB witjh port 8000 it would forward that to ec2 with port 8000. How can I accomplish this? Is their any other way of ELB listening and forwarding multiple ports?
I have added listener for port 80,443 and 8000 in my ELB. Please help
Classic ELB
Using the "classic" ELB you can define custom rules for forwarding the ports in the AWS dashboard:
Mind that the requests will be forwarded to all the available instances, which means in the example above (supposing php is running on the 80, node.js on the 8000) all the instances must have both the services running. If the services are instead on different instances you will need two different load balancers, one per port.
Application ELB
Another option is to use an "application" ELB (ALB).
This option will allow to have single load balancer with fine-grained rules that will allow, for each protocol, to forward the request to a set of instances.
create a "default" ALB
add a new target group (see entry under the Load Balancing section in the sidebar) listening on your custom port
register the instances running your node.js application (right click on the target group)
bind the target group to the listeners of your ALB
Another solution could be, specifying path-based rules, to use only one port (443) and forward only the requests under /to_nodejs to the port 8000.
I'm getting gateway time-outs when trying to use a port specifically for websockets using an Application Load Balancer inside an Elastic Beanstalk environment.
The web application and websocket server is held within a Docker container, the application runs fine however wss://domain.com:8080 will just time out.
Here is the Load balancer listeners, using the SSL cert for wss.
The target group it points to is accepting 'Protocol' of HTTP (I've tried HTTPS) and forwards to 8080 onto an EC2 instance. Or.. It should be. (Doesn't appear to be an option for TCP on Application Load Balancers).
I've had a look over the Application Load Balancer logs and it looks like the it reaches the target group, but times out between it's connection to the EC2 instance, and I'm stumped on why.
All AWS Security Groups have been opened on all traffic for the time being, I've checked the host and found that the port is open and being listened to by Nginx which will route to the correct port to the docker container:
docker ps also shows me:
And once inside the container I can see that the port is being listened to by the Websocket server:
So it can't be the EC2 instance itself, can it? Is there an issue routing websockets via ports in an ALB?
-- Edit --
Current SG of the ALB:
The EC2 instance SG:
Accepted answer here seems to be "open Security Groups for EC2 (web server) and ALB inbound & outbound communication on required ports since websockets need two way communication."
This is incorrect and the reason why it solved the problem is coincidental.
Let me explain:
"Websockets needs two way communication..." - Sure but the TCP sessions is only ever opened from one way - from the client.
You don't have to allow any outbound connections from the EC2 instance (web server) in order to use web sockets.
Of course the ALB needs to be able to do TCP connections to the EC2 instance. But not to the client. Why? Well the ALB is accepting TCP connections (usually on port 80 and 443). It is setting up a TCP session that was initiated by the client. It is then trying to set up a new TCP session to the web server behind the ALB. This should be done on the port that you decided to have the web server listening on. The Security Group around the ALB needs to be able to do outbound connections on this port to the web server. This is the reason why "open up everything" worked. It has nothing to do with "two way communication".
You could use any ports of course but you don't need to use any other ports than 80 & 443 (such as 8080) on both the Load Balancer or the EC2.
Websockets need two way communication, make sure security groups attached to all resources (EC2 & ALB) allow both inbound & outbound communication on required ports.
I'm trying to set up Load balancing to my cluster that I created via container engine but I keep getting 502 Server Error.
Here is what I do.
I make sure that my service really runs taking this ip in kubernetes dashboard
I have only one instance group. So this belongs cluster
80 port is open for every instance in Firewall rules
I created a load balancer with this configuration. As you can see I set the only instance group I got, also I set up health check. The health check is http endoint /api/ping/ that returns HTTP 200 with body "pong". But I keep getting 502 ERROR. I understand it happens because health check doesn't pass. Apperently it's because when load balancer is sending request it's sending directly to instances, instead of to docker containers. If I go by ip of vm isntance where I host my cluster I will get nothing as well.
I want to do it so I could switch traffic between different clusters If I decide to create a new one, also I would be able to balance https traffic.
Maybe it will help someone so I will post the answer.
I created my pods via UI kubernetes using their consructor-form. When I used this form ports were not exposed to the host machine(Even I marked them as External ports). I wrote an yaml config and exposed ports there to host machine. After this balancer started working.
I used this block to expose 80 port to host machine
ports:
- containerPort: 80
hostPort: 80
protocol: TCP