Google Compute Engine lets you get a group of instances that are semantically local in the sense that only they can talk to each other and all external access has to go through a firewall etc. If I want to run Map-Reduce or other kinds of cluster jobs that are going to induce high network traffic, then I also want machines that are physically local (say, on the same rack). Looking at the APIs and initial documentation, I don't see any way to request that; does anyone know otherwise?
There is no support in GCE right now for specifying rack locality. However, we built the system to work well in the face of large numbers of instances talking to each other in a fully connected way, as long as they are in the same zone.
This is one of the things that allowed MapR to approach the record for a hadoop terasort. You can see that in action in the video for the Criag Mcluckie's talk from IO:
https://developers.google.com/events/io/sessions/gooio2012/302/
The best way to see is to test out your application and see how it works.
Related
So, I really like the idea of server-less. I came across Google Cloud Functions and Google Cloud Run.
So google cloud functions are individual functions, which is a broad perspective, I assume google must be securely running on a huge nodejs server. And it contains all the functions of all the google consumers and fulfils the request using unique URLs. Now, Google takes care of the cost of this one big server and charges users for every hit their function gets. So its pay to use. And makes sense.
But when it comes to Cloud Run. I fail to understand how does it work. Obviously the container must not always be running because then they will simply charge a monthly basis instead of a per-hit basis, just like a normal VM where docker image is deployed. But no, in reality, they charge on per hit basis, that means they spin up the container when a request arrives. So, I don't understand how does it spin it up so fast? The users have the flexibility of running any sort of environment, that means the docker container could contain literally anything. Maybe a full-fledged Linux OS. How does it load up the environment OS so quickly and fulfils the request? Well, maybe it maintains the state of the machine and shut it down when not in use, but even then, it will require a decent amount of time to restore the state.
So how does google really does it? How is it able to spin up a customer's container in literally no time?
The idea of fast spinning-up sandboxes containers (that run on their own kernel for security reasons) have been around for a pretty long time. For example, Intel Clear Linux Containers and Firecracker provide fast startup through various optimizations.
As you can imagine, implementing something like this would require optimizations at many layers (scheduling, traffic serving, autoscaling, image caching...).
Without giving away Google’s secrets, we can probably talk about image storage and caching: Just like how VMs use initramfs to pre-cache the state of the VM, instead of reading all the files from harddisk and following the boot sequence, we can do similar tricks with containers.
Google uses a similar solution for Cloud Run, called gVisor. It's a user-space virtualization technique (not an actual VMM or hypervisor). To run containers on a Linux-like environment, gVisor doesn't need to boot a Linux kernel from scratch (because gVisor reimplements the linux kernel in go!).
You’ll find many optimizations on other serverless platforms across most cloud providers (such as how to keep a container instance around, should you be predictively scheduling inactive containers before the load arrives). I recommend reading the Peeking Behind the Curtains of Serverless Platforms paper to get an idea about what are the problems in this space and what are cloud providers trying to optimize for speed and cost.
You have to decouple the containers to the VMs. The second link of Dustin is great because if you understand the principles of Kubernetes (and more if you have a look to Knative), it's easy to translate this to Cloud Run.
You have a pool of resources (Nodes in Kubernetes, the VM in fact with CPU and memory) and on these resources, you can run container: 1, 2, 1000 per VM, maybe, you don't know and you don't care. The power of the container, is the ability to be packaged with all the dependency that it needs. Yes, I talked about package because your container isn't an OS, it contains the dependencies for interacting with the host OS.
For preventing any problem between container from different project/customer, the container run into a sandbox (GVisor, first link of Dustin).
So, there is no VM to start and to stop, no VM to create when you deploy a Cloud Run services,... It's only a start of your container on existing resources. It's also for this reason that you need to have a stateless container, without disks attached to it.
Do you want 3 "secrets"?
It's exactly the same things with Cloud Functions! Your code is packaged into a container and deploy exactly as it's done with Cloud Run.
The underlying platform that manages Cloud Functions and Cloud Run is the same. That's why the behavior and the feature are very similar! Cloud Functions is longer to deploy because Google need to build the container for you. With Cloud Run the container is already built.
Your Compute Engine instance is also managed as a container on the Google infrastructure! More generally, all is container at Google!
My company is currently evaluating hyperledger(fabric) and we're using it for our POC. It looks very promising and we're targeting rolling out to production in next few months.
We're targeting AWS as our production environment.
However, we're struggling to find good tutorial/practices/recommendations about operating hyperledger network in such environment.
I'm aware that Cello is aiming to solve/ease deploying/monitoring hyperledger network but i also read that its not production ready yet. Question is, should we even consider looking at Cello at this point?
If not, what are our alternatives? Docker swarm, kubernetes?
I also didn't find information about recommended instance types. I understand this is application and AWS specific but what are the minimal system requirements
(memory&CPU&network) for example for 'peer' node (our application is not network intensive, nor a lot of transactions will be submitted per hour/day, only few of them per day).
Another question is where to create those instances on AWS from geographical&decentralization point of view. Does it make sense all of them to be created in same region? Or, we must create instances running in different regions?
Tnx a lot.
Igor.
yes, look at Cello.. if nothing else it will help you see the aws deployment model.
really nothing special..
design the desired system, peers, orderer, gateways, etc..
then decide who many ec2 instance u need to support that.
as for WHERE (region).. depends on where the connecting application is and what kind of fault tolerance you need for your business model.
one of the businesses I am working with wants a minimum of 99.99999 % availability. so, multi-region is critical. its just another ec2 instance with sockets open from different hosts..
aws doesn't provide much in terms of support for hyperledger. they have some templates which allow you to setup the VMs initially, but that's stuff you can do yourself as well.
you are right, the documentation is very light and most of the time confusing. I got to the point where I can start from scratch with a brand new VM and got everything ready and deploy my own network definition and chaincode and have the scripts to do that.
IBM cloud has much better support for hyperledger however. you can design your network visually, you can download your connection profiles, deploy and instantiate chaincode, create and join channels, handle certificates, pretty much everything you need to run and support such a network. It's light years ahead of AWS. They even have a full CI / CD pipepline that you could replicate for your own project. if you look at their marbles demo, you'll see what i mean.
Cello is definitely worth looking at, with the caveat that it's incubation meaning, not real yet, not production ready and not really useful until it becomes a fully fledged product.
This question has a conceptual and practical parts.
Conceptually I'd like to know if using the autoscaling functionality is equivalent to simply increasing the compute power by a factor of the number of added instances?
Practically ... how does this work? I have one running instance, its database sitting on an LVM composed of multiple EBS volumes, similarly with all website data. Judging from the load on the instance I either need to upgrade to a more powerful instance or introduce this autoscaling. Is it a copy of the running server? If so, how is the database (etc) kept consistent?
I've read through the AWS documentation, and still haven't got the picture yet - I could set one autoscaling group up which would probably clear my doubts, but I am very leery to do this with a production server.
Any nudges in the right direction would be welcome.
Normally if you have a solution that also uses a database, and several machines in the solution, the database is typically not on any of the machines but is instead hosted seperately with each worker machine pointing to the same database - if you are on AWS platform already, then DynamoDB or RDS are both good solutions for this.
In theory, for some applications, upgrading the size of the single machine will give you the same power as adding several smaller machines, but increasing the size of the single machine, while usually these easiest thing to do at first, should not be considered autoscaling and has its own drawbacks. Here are some things to consider:
Using multiple machines instead of one big one gives you some fault tolerance. One or more machines can go down and if your solution is properly designed new machines will spin up to replace them.
Increasing the size of a single machine solution means you are probably paying too much. If you size that single machine big enough to handle peak workloads, that means at other times (maybe most of the time), you are paying for a bigger machine than you need. If you setup your autoscaling solution properly more machines come on line in response to increasing demand, and then they terminate when that demand decreases - you only pay for the power you need when you need it.
When your solution is designed in this manner, you need to think of all of the worker machines as ephermal - likely to disappear at any time, so you need to build your solution differently. Besides using a hosted database (like on DynamoDB or AWS RDS), you also should not store any data on the machines in your auto-scaling group that doesn't also live somewhere else. For example, if part of your app allows users to upload images, you don't store them on the instances, you store them in S3. Same would apply to any other new data that comes in.
You need to be able to figuratively 'pull the plug' at any instant on any of the machines in your ASG without losing data.
Ultimately a properly setup auto-scaling solution will likely serve you better, but without doubt it is simpler to just 'buy a bigger machine' and the extra money you spend on running that bigger machine may be more than offset by the time and effort you don't have to spend re-architecting your solution to properly run in an autoscaling environment. The unique requirements of your solution will ultimately decide which approach is better.
I have a web app running on php, mysql, apache on a virtual windows server. I want to redesign it so it is scalable (for fun so I can learn new things) on AWS.
I can see how to setup an EC2 and dump it all in there but I want to make it scalable and take advantage of all the cool features on AWS.
I've tried googling but just can't find a simple guide (note - I have no command line experience of Linux)
Can anyone direct me to detailed resources that can lead me through the steps and teach me? Or alternatively, summarise the steps in an answer so I can research based on what you say.
Thanks
AWS is growing and changing all the time, so there aren't a lot of books to help. Amazon offers training that's excellent. I took their three day class on Architecting with AWS that seems to be just what you're looking for.
Of course, not everyone can afford to spend the travel time and money to attend a class. The AWS re:Invent conference in November 2012 had a lot of sessions related to what you want, and most (maybe all) of the sessions have videos available online for free. Building Web Scale Applications With AWS is probably relevant (slides and video available), as is Dissecting an Internet-Scale Application (slides and video available).
A great way to understand these options better is by fiddling with your existing application on AWS. It will be easy to just move it to an EC2 instance in AWS, then start taking more advantage of what's available. The first thing I'd do is get rid of the MySql server on your own machine and use one offered with RDS. Once that's stable, create one or more read replicas in RDS, and change your application to read from them for most operations, reading from the main (writable) database only when you need completely current results.
Does your application keep any data on the web server, other than in the database? If so, get rid of all local storage by moving that data off the EC2 instance. Some of it might go to the database, some (like big files) might be suitable for S3. DynamoDB is a good place for things like session data.
All of the above reduces the load on the web server to just your application code, which helps with scalability. And now that you keep no state on the web server, you can use ELB and Auto-scaling to automatically run multiple web servers (and even automatically launch more as needed) to handle greater load.
Does the application have any long running, intensive operations that you now perform on demand from a web request? Consider not performing the operation when asked, but instead queueing the request using SQS, and just telling the user you'll get to it. Now have long running processes (or cron jobs or scheduled tasks) check the queue regularly, run the requested operation, and email the result (using SES) back to the user. To really scale up, you can move those jobs off your web server to dedicated machines, and again use auto-scaling if needed.
Do you need bigger machines, or perhaps can live with smaller ones? CloudWatch metrics can show you how much IO, memory, and CPU are used over time. You can use provisioned IOPS with EC2 or RDS instances to improve performance (at a cost) as needed, and use difference size instances for more memory or CPU.
All this AWS setup and configuration can be done with the AWS web console, or command-line tools, or SDKs available in many languages (Python's boto library is great). After learning the basics, look into CloudFormation to automate it better (I've written a couple of posts about that so far).
That's a bit of the 10,000 foot high view of one approach. You'll need to discover the details of each AWS service when you try to use them. AWS has good documentation about all of them.
Depending on how you look at it, this is more of a comment than it is an answer, but it was too long to write as a comment.
What you're asking for really can't be answered on SO--it's a huge, complex question. You're basically asking is "How to I design a highly-scalable, durable application that can be deployed on a cloud-based platform?" The answer depends largely on:
The specifics of your application--what does it do and how does it work?
Your tolerance for downtime balanced against your budget
Your present development and deployment workflow
The resources/skill sets you have on-staff to support the application
What your launch time frame looks like.
I run a software consulting company that specializes in consulting on Amazon Web Services architecture. About 80% of our business is investigating and answering these questions for our clients. It's a multi-week long project each time.
However, to get you pointed in the right direction, I'd recommend that you look at Elastic Beanstalk. It's a PaaS-like service that abstracts away the underlying AWS resources, making AWS easier to use for developers who don't have a lot of sysadmin experience. Think of it as "training wheels" for designing an autoscaling application on AWS.
We have an application deployed across AWS with using EC2, EBS services.
The infrastructure dropped by layers (independent instances):
application (with load balancer)
database (master-slave standard schema)
media server (streaming)
background processing (redis, delayed_job)
Application and Database instance use number of EBS block storage devices (root, data), which help us to attach/detach them and do EBS snapshots to S3. It's pretty default way how AWS works.
But EBS should be located in a specific zone and can be attached to one instance only in the same time.
Media server is one of bottlenecks, so we'd like to scale them with master/slave schema. So for the media server storage we'd like to try distributed file systems can be attached to multiple servers. What do you advice?
If you're not Facebook or Amazon, then you have no real reason to use something as elaborate as Hadoop or Cassandra. When you reach that level of growth, you'll be able to afford engineers who can choose/design the perfect solution to your problems.
In the meantime, I would strongly recommend GlusterFS for distributed storage. It's extremely easy to install, configure and get up and running. Also, if you're currently streaming files from local storage, you'll appreciate that GlusterFS also acts as local storage while remaining accessible by multiple servers. In other words, no changes to your application are required.
I can't tell you the exact configuration options for your specific application, but there are many available such as distributed, replicated, striped data. You can also play with cache settings to avoid hitting disks on every request, etc.
One thing to note, since GlusterFS is a layer above the other storage layers (particularly with Amazon), you might not get impressive disk performance. Actually it might be much worst than what you have now, for the sake of scalability... basically you could be better-off designing your application to serve streaming media from a CDN who already has the correct infrastructure for your type of application. It's something to think about.
HBase/Hadoop
Cassandra
MogileFS
Good same question (if I understand correctly):
Lustre, Gluster or MogileFS?? for video storage, encoding and streaming
There are many distributed file systems, just find the one you need.
The above are just part which I personally know (haven't tested them).