If an ECS task runs in multiple instances, the rolling deployment methods usually terminate tasks one by one and replace it with a newer version (newer task definition), in order to maximize uptime.
But we have some containers that may make schema upgrades on first-run (as an example), and here we never want old versions of a container to run at the same time as newer versions.
Another example is coupled data formats, that a new front-end talks to a new API. We'd rather have a moment of downtime than have old front-ends talk to new APIs, or new front-ends talk to old APIs.
ECS doesn't seem to provide a deployment strategy that terminates all instances of a task before starting to roll out new ones.
Before I roll some bash script that reduces task counts to 0 prior to an update and returns it to its original value, does anyone know if AWS provides a way to cleanly drain a service of tasks before rolling out a new task definition?
In a similar scenario I would do it as follows.
I would add my pipeline (if using a stack code) a CodeDeploy step and set the traffic to "All-at-once", this doc can start to direct you something.
In case I was unable to work with the stack code, I would create a lambda, which would be triggered by the pipeline, a step before the deploy, this lambda could interact with the ECS, resetting the tasks to receive the new version of the application, but in this situation, a downtime will be felt, of at least 2 ~ 5 minutes, depending on how your application is optimized. You can see a little more about the lib that will allow you to do this here.
Related
I am trying to find a solution to run a cron job in a Kubernetes-deployed app without unwanted duplicates. Let me describe my scenario, to give you a little bit of context.
I want to schedule jobs that execute once at a specified date. More precisely: creating such a job can happen anytime and its execution date will be known only at that time. The job that needs to be done is always the same, but it needs parametrization.
My application is running inside a Kubernetes cluster, and I cannot assume that there always will be only one instance of it running at the any moment in time. Therefore, creating the said job will lead to multiple executions of it due to the fact that all of my application instances will spawn it. However, I want to guarantee that a job runs exactly once in the whole cluster.
I tried to find solutions for this problem and came up with the following ideas.
Create a local file and check if it is already there when starting a new job. If it is there, cancel the job.
Not possible in my case, since the duplicate jobs might run on other machines!
Utilize the Kubernetes CronJob API.
I cannot use this feature because I have to create cron jobs dynamically from inside my application. I cannot change the cluster configuration from a pod running inside that cluster. Maybe there is a way, but it seems to me there have to be a better solution than giving the application access to the cluster it is running in.
Would you please be as kind as to give me any directions at which I might find a solution?
I am using a managed Kubernetes Cluster on Digital Ocean (Client Version: v1.22.4, Server Version: v1.21.5).
After thinking about a solution for a rather long time I found it.
The solution is to take the scheduling of the jobs to a central place. It is as easy as building a job web service that exposes endpoints to create jobs. An instance of a backend creating a job at this service will also provide a callback endpoint in the request which the job web service will call at the execution date and time.
The endpoint in my case links back to the calling backend server which carries the logic to be executed. It would be rather tedious to make the job service execute the logic directly since there are a lot of dependencies involved in the job. I keep a separate database in my job service just to store information about whom to call and how. Addressing the startup after crash problem becomes trivial since there is only one instance of the job web service and it can just re-create the jobs normally after retrieving them from the database in case the service crashed.
Do not forget to take care of failing jobs. If your backends are not reachable for some reason to take the callback, there must be some reconciliation mechanism in place that will prevent this failure from staying unnoticed.
A little note I want to add: In case you also want to scale the job service horizontally you run into very similar problems again. However, if you think about what is the actual work to be done in that service, you realize that it is very lightweight. I am not sure if horizontal scaling is ever a requirement, since it is only doing requests at specified times and is not executing heavy work.
My kubernetes application is made of several flavors of nodes, a couple of “schedulers” which send tasks to quite a few more “worker” nodes. In order for this app to work correctly all the nodes must be of exactly the same code version.
The deployment is performed using a standard ReplicaSet and when my CICD kicks in it just does a simple rolling update. This causes a problem though since during the rolling update, nodes of different code versions co-exist for a few seconds, so a few tasks during this time get wrong results.
Ideally what I would want is that deploying a new version would create a completely new application that only communicates with itself and has time to warm its cache, then on a flick of a switch this new app would become active and start to get new client requests. The old app would remain active for a few more seconds and then shut down.
I’m using Istio sidecar for mesh communication.
Is there a standard way to do this? How is such a requirement usually handled?
I also had such a situation. Kubernetes alone cannot satisfy your requirement, I was also not able to find any tool that allows to coordinate multiple deployments together (although Flagger looks promising).
So the only way I found was by using CI/CD: Jenkins in my case. I don't have the code, but the idea is the following:
Deploy all application deployments using single Helm chart. Every Helm release name and corresponding Kubernetes labels must be based off of some sequential number, e.g. Jenkins $BUILD_NUMBER. Helm release can be named like example-app-${BUILD_NUMBER} and all deployments must have label version: $BUILD_NUMBER . Important part here is that your Services should not be a part of your Helm chart because they will be handled by Jenkins.
Start your build with detecting the current version of the app (using bash script or you can store it in ConfigMap).
Start helm install example-app-{$BUILD_NUMBER} with --atomic flag set. Atomic flag will make sure that the release is properly removed on failure. And don't delete previous version of the app yet.
Wait for Helm to complete and in case of success run kubectl set selector service/example-app version=$BUILD_NUMBER. That will instantly switch Kubernetes Service from one version to another. If you have multiple services you can issue multiple set selector commands (each command executes immediately).
Delete previous Helm release and optionally update ConfigMap with new app version.
Depending on your app you may want to run tests on non user facing Services as a part of step 4 (after Helm release succeeds).
Another good idea is to have preStop hooks on your worker pods so that they can finish their jobs before being deleted.
You should consider Blue/Green Deployment strategy
Current Setup
We have kubernetes cluster setup with 3 kubernetes pods which run spring boot application. We run a job every 12 hrs using spring boot scheduler to get some data and cache it.(there is queue setup but I will not go on those details as my query is for the setup before we get to queue)
Problem
Because we have 3 pods and scheduler is at application level , we make 3 calls for data set and each pod gets the response and pod which processes at caches it first becomes the master and other 2 pods replicate the data from that instance.
I see this as a problem because we will increase number of jobs for get more datasets , so this will multiply the number of calls made.
I am not from Devops side and have limited azure knowledge hence I need some help from community
Need
What are the options available to improve this? I want to separate out Cron schedule to run only once and not for each pod
1 - Can I keep cronjob at cluster level , i have read about it here https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/workloads/controllers/cron-jobs/
Will this solve a problem?
2 - I googled and found other option is to run a Cronjob which will schedule a job to completion, will that help and not sure what it really means.
Thanks in Advance to taking out time to read it.
Based on my understanding of your problem, it looks like you have following two choices (at least) -
If you continue to have scheduling logic within your springboot main app, then you may want to explore something like shedlock that helps make sure your scheduled job through app code executes only once via an external lock provider like MySQL, Redis, etc. when the app code is running on multiple nodes (or kubernetes pods in your case).
If you can separate out the scheduler specific app code into its own executable process (i.e. that code can run in separate set of pods than your main application code pods), then you can levarage kubernetes cronjob to schedule kubernetes job that internally creates pods and runs your application logic. Benefit of this approach is that you can use native kubernetes cronjob parameters like concurrency and few others to ensure the job runs only once during scheduled time through single pod.
With approach (1), you get to couple your scheduler code with your main app and run them together in same pods.
With approach (2), you'd have to separate your code (that runs in scheduler) from overall application code, containerize it into its own image, and then configure kubernetes cronjob schedule with this new image referring official guide example and kubernetes cronjob best practices (authored by me but can find other examples).
Both approaches have their own merits and de-merits, so you can evaluate them to suit your needs best.
I am currently running a Flink session cluster (Kubernetes, 1 JobManager, 1 TaskManager, Zookeeper, S3) in which multiple jobs run.
As we are working on adding more jobs, we are looking to improve our deployment and cluster management strategies. We are considering migrating to using job clusters, however there is reservation about the number of containers which will be spawned. One container per job is not an issue, but two containers (1 JM and 1 TM) per job raises concerns about memory consumption. Several of the jobs need high-availability and the ability to use checkpoints and restore from/take savepoints as they aggregate events over a window.
From my reading of the documentation and spending time on Google, I haven't found anything that seems to state whether or not what is being considered is really possible.
Is it possible to do any of these three things:
run both the JobManager and TaskManager as separate processes in the same container and have that serve as the Flink cluster, or
run the JobManager and TaskManager as literally the same process, or
run the job as a standalone JAR with the ability to recover from/take checkpoints and the ability to take a savepoint and restore from that savepoint?
(If anyone has any better ideas, I'm all ears.)
One of the responsibilities of the job manager is to monitor the task manager(s), and initiate restarts when failures have occurred. That works nicely in containerized environments when the JM and TMs are in separate containers; otherwise it seems like you're asking for trouble. Keeping the TMs separate also makes sense if you are ever going to scale up, though that may moot in your case.
What might be workable, though, would be to run the job using a LocalExecutionEnvironment (so that everything is in one process -- this is sometimes called a Flink minicluster). This path strikes me as feasible, if you're willing to work at it, but I can't recommend it. You'll have to somehow keep track of the checkpoints, and arrange for the container to be restarted from a checkpoint when things fail. And there are other things that may not work very well -- see this question for details. The LocalExecutionEnvironment wasn't designed with production deployments in mind.
What I'd suggest you explore instead is to see how far you can go toward making the standard, separate container solution affordable. For starters, you should be able to run the JM with minimal resources, since it doesn't have much to do.
Check this operator which automates the lifecycle of deploying and managing Flink in Kubernetes. The project is in beta but you can still get some idea about how to do it or directly use this operator if it fits your requirement. Here Job Manager and Task manager is separate kubernetes deployment.
I have a few jobs in Jenkins that use Selenium to modify a database through a website's front end. If some of these jobs run at the same time, errors due to dirty reads can result. Is there a way to force certain jobs in Jenkins to be unable to run at the same time? I would prefer not to have to place or pick up a lock on the database, which could be read or modified by any number of users who are also testing.
You want the Throttle Concurrent Builds plugin which lets you define global and per-node semaphores.
Locks and latches is being deprecated in favor of Throttle Concurrent builds.
I've tried both the locks & latches plugin and the port allocator plugin as ways to achieve what you're trying to do. Neither worked reliably for me. Locks & latches worked some of the time, but I'd occasionally get hung jobs. Using port allocator as a hack will work unless you have multiple jenkins nodes, but the config overhead is kind of high. What I've ultimately settled upon is another hack, but it works reliably and uses core Jenkins stuff (no plugins):
create a slave node running on the same box as the master (or not, if you have lots of boxes)
give this slave a single executor (key)
tie the 2 (or n) jobs that must not run together to this new slave node
optionally set the slave's usage to 'tied jobs only' if it'll screw up your other jobs if they happen to run on the new slave
Since the slave has only one executor, the jobs tied to it can never run together.
If you regard the database as a shared resource that can only be used exclusively then this fits the usecase of the Lockable resources plugin.
It is being actively developed and improved and is very versatile.