I running different multiple websites on an EC2 instance separated by vhost.conf but I sometimes run out of resources as some web apps consume more than others. Not only that, I also get experience down time if one site generates config errors in apache -> all servers will simply stop responding. The other thing is I also desire to run inginx and other web servers
My Supposing Solutions are:
1.To create an ECS instance and containerise each website on separate EC2 inside ECS, meaning I will have multiple instances of EC2 in ECS.
2.Create containers on an already existing EC2 for each site, but the downside is I will still have a single point of failure.
Kindly advise on the best approach and/or add on other suitable suggestions
I couldn't find anything in the documentation but still writing to make sure I did not miss it. I want all connections from different clients with the same value for a certain request parameter to end up on the same upstream host. With ELB sticky session, you can have the same client connect to the same host but no guarantees across different clients.
This is possible with Envoy proxy, see: https://www.envoyproxy.io/docs/envoy/latest/intro/arch_overview/upstream/load_balancing/load_balancers#ring-hash
We already use ELB so if the above is possible with ELB then we can avoid introducing another layer in between with envoy.
UPDATE:
Use-case - in a multi-tenant cloud solution, we want all clients from a given customer account to connect to the same upstream host.
Unfortunately this is not possible to be performed in an ALB.
An application load balancer controls all the logic over which host receives the traffic with features such as ELB sticky sessions and pattern based routing.
If there is no work around then you could look at a Classic Loadbalancer which has support for the application setting the sticky session cookie name and value.
From best practice ideally your application should be stateless, is it possible to look at rearchitecting your app instead of trying work around. Some suggestions I would have are:
Using DynamoDB to store any session based data, moving from a disk based session (if that's what your application does).
Any disk based files that need to persist could be shared between all hosts either using EFS for your Linux based hosts, or FSX on Windows.
Medium/Long term persisting files could be migrated to S3, any assets that rarely change could be stored here and then your application could use S3 rather than disk.
It's important to remember that as I stated above, you should keep your application as stateless as you can. Assume that your EC2 instances could fail, by preparing for this it will make it easier to recover.
I'm building a Sails app that is using socket.io and see that Sails offers a method for using multiple servers via redis:
http://sailsjs.org/documentation/concepts/realtime/multi-server-environments
Since I will be placing the app on AWS, preferably with ELB (elastic load balancer) and autoscale group with multiple EC2 instances was wondering how I can handle so it doesn't need a separate redis instance?
Maybe we can use AWS Elasticache? If so - how would this be done?
Now that AWS has released the new ALB application load balancer which has websockets, could this be used to help simplify things?
Thanks in advance
Updates for use-cases in application
Allow end-user to update data dynamically from their own dashboard
and display analytics/stats in real-time to an administrator
Application status' to change based on specific timings eg. at a
given start date/time the app allows users to update data.
Regarding your first question, you don't want to run Redis on the same servers that Sails is running on, especially if you are using AutoScaling. The Redis server needs to be a separate server that won't disappear if your environment experiences a "scale-in" event. So Redis is going to have to be on a separate "server" somewhere.
ElastiCache is just separate EC2 instances, running Redis, where AWS handles most of the management for you to the point that you can't even SSH into the instance. It's similar to how RDS works. ElastiCache will certainly work for your scenario. You might also want to look at the third-party service RedisLabs which also manages Redis instances on AWS for you.
Regarding your second question, an Application Load Balancer will have no bearing on your Redis usage. It will however bring actual support for WebSockets which it sounds like you are using. So yes, you should be using an ALB instead of an ELB.
I wanted to know if there is an option in Amazon Web Services, two have two EC2 instances running, and me, as a developer, being able to have a direct access to one of my choice when both servers serve under the same domain.
By access, I mean regular access to the website via a web browser (e.g. www.domain.com/some-post/)
I want my site to continue be up and live. I currently have a single EC2 server that servers under www.domain.com. If I add another server via Elastic Load Balancer,I don't have control over which server the load balancer sends me.
I have a Wordpress site which I want to upgrade its theme, plugins and the core files, so I want only me to have access to that server and test it out. I could open a server and test it on a public ip, I did it, and it doesn't work as expected, so I need to run it under the original address to make sure that if it runs OK like that, it will run OK live.
The only way that I thought about doing it is to create an image of the server, create an EC2 instance, use a different domain name, restrict access to the server to my IP address, change in the DB to the new domain name, than after everything works, change the domain back to original and make the Elastic IP point to the new server.
No you can't achieve this behavior with an ELB. This would totally defeat the purpose of an ELB - who's purpose is to evenly distribute traffic amongst the instances associated with it.
By the sounds of it, you're looking for a testing stage that you can use to test out new updates etc without damaging the live site.
You could always set up a DNS name for your domain for your testing stage - eg."alpha.mysite.com".
It's quite common practice to use environment variables for use cases like this. You might have an environment variable set on machines that on prod could be eg: stage=prod and on your testing stage could be stage=test. Then in your code, you can get this environment variable an do something different depending on what stage the code is running on. For example, use the prod/development database.
It might be an idea to start using Code Deploy for pushing your code. This way, you can have deployment hooks set up your environment on each instance - install dependencies, load the code, start the application etc. And then using the environment variables already on the instances being deployed to, your code will do the correct thing.
I suppose you could put the test stage on a different port on your prod machines and that way you could use the same domain, but this would be a really bad idea. I think to get a safe, fault tolerant and scalable solution, you're going to need an additional DNS name. And you most certainly shouldn't use the same ELB. If you want to test load balancing for your test application, you should use an additional ELB.
In fact some people even go the lengths of using different AWS accounts for managing test environments.
You might also be interested in Code Pipeline to help you with this.
If I understand correctly, you run multiple instances behind a single ELB and want to be able to access one of the instances to test upgrades. I assume that, while performance and testing the upgrade, you don't want other users to access that instance.
I can think of a few ways to accomplish this. Here are two practical ones:
1. Remove the instance from the load balancer using the AWS console or CLI. No requests to the ELB will go to this instance.
Access the instance you want to upgrade directly on it's own address. For this, the security group on the instance must be configured to allow HTTP connections from the outsite. You could allow only access from your own IP and the load balancer, for example.
2. Create another ELB for test purposes. Make sure that the instance you're upgrading only responds to the test ELB, not to the production ELB. Two ways to accomplish this: either remove it from the production ELB manually, or make the ELB health check on the instance fail. (in the latter case, you would need different healthchecks for the test and production elb).
My advice: when costs are an issue, go for option one. When the additional costs of an extra ELB is not an issue, go for option 2, manually remove the instance from the production ELB while upgrading, and re-attach it when done and tested.
Update (i realized i didn't answer your question completely): for this to work without changing the domain in your database, you would need to point the machine you're testing from to the right host.
Two options:
1. When going for the direct http connection to the instance, make sure that the instance has an external ip. Put the domain in your hosts file and point it to the ip.
2. When going for an extra test elb, either point the domain in your hosts file to one of the ELB ip's, or run a local dns server that has a record for the domain with a CNAME to the ELB hostname.
Although verifying the correct upgrade of a single production node is a valid use case, in this case you're probably better off creating a separate test environment on a different domain.
This way, you can test all changes/upgrades in isolation.
For best results, you would need to periodically transfer the database from production to the test environment. You could write a database scripts that automatically changes the domain in the database so you can (partially or fully) automate the production-to-test-database-restore process.
I have an application on an Windows server EC2 with an SQL server for our database.
What I would like to do is an load balancer so the application won't fail due to overload.
I have a couple of questions that Im not certain about it.
I believe that i need to create an image of my current instance and duplicate it. my problem is that my database is based on my current instance so it would duplicate my database as well.
Do I need another instance just for my database?
If yes, then it means that I need a total of 3 instances. 2 for the application and 1 for the database.
In this case I need to change my application to connect to the new instance database instead of the current database.
After all that happens I need to add a load balancer.
I hope I made myself clear.
I would recommend using RDS (http://aws.amazon.com/rds/) for this. This way you don't have to worry about the database server and just host your application server on EC2 instances. Your AMI will then contain just the application server and thus when you scale up you will be launching additional app servers only and not database servers.
Since you are deploying a .NET application, I would also recommend taking a look at Elastic Beanstalk (http://aws.amazon.com/elasticbeanstalk/) since it will really help to make auto scaling much easier and your solution will scale up/down as well as self-heal itself.
As far the load balancer is concerned, you can either manually update your load balancer will the new instances of your application server or you can let your auto scale script do it for you. If you go for ElasticBeanstalk, then Elastic Beanstalk will take care of adding/removing instances to/from your Elastic Load Balancer for you on its own.