I would like to add a node to my CockroachDB cluster, but the cluster is currently undergoing an IMPORT. Would it still be safe to add a node while the IMPORT is active?
Adding a node during an active IMPORT should be completely safe. Currently it'll be ignored by the running import as far as processing the importing data, though our key-value storage layer may start to rebalance imported data on to the added node.
Related
I'm looking to set up a writing proxy for our MariaDB database on Kubernetes. The problem we are currently having is that we only have one Write master on our 3 master galera cluster setup. So even though we have ours pods replication properly, if our first node goes down then our other two masters end up failing because they are not able to be written to.
I saw this was a possible option to use either ProxySQL or MaxScale for Write proxying, but I'm not sure if I'm reading their uses properly. Do I have the right idea looking to deploy either of these two applications/services on Kubernetes to fix my problem? Would I be able to write to any of the Masters in the cluster?
MaxScale will handle selecting which server to write to as long as you use the readwritesplit router and the galeramon monitor.
Here's an example configuration for MaxScale that does load balancing of reads but sends writes to one node:
[maxscale]
threads=auto
[node1]
type=server
address=node1-address
port=3306
[node2]
type=server
address=node2-address
port=3306
[node3]
type=server
address=node3-address
port=3306
[Galera-Cluster]
type=monitor
module=galeramon
servers=node1,node2,node3
user=my-user
password=my-password
[RW-Split-Router]
type=service
router=readwritesplit
cluster=Galera-Cluster
user=my-user
password=my-password
[RW-Split-Listener]
type=listener
service=RW-Split-Router
protocol=mariadbclient
port=4006
The reason writes are only done on one node at a time is because doing it on multiple Galera nodes won't improve write performance and it results in conflicts when transactions are committed (applications seem to rarely handle these).
We have been using Terraform for almost a year now to manage all kinds of resources on AWS from bastion hosts to VPCs, RDS and also EKS.
We are sometimes really baffled by the EKS module. It could however be due to lack of understanding (and documentation), so here it goes:
Problem: Upsizing Disk (volume)
module "eks" {
source = "terraform-aws-modules/eks/aws"
version = "12.2.0"
cluster_name = local.cluster_name
cluster_version = "1.19"
subnets = module.vpc.private_subnets
#...
node_groups = {
first = {
desired_capacity = 1
max_capacity = 5
min_capacity = 1
instance_type = "m5.large"
}
}
I thought the default value for this (dev) k8s cluster's node can easily be the default 20GBs but it's filling up fast so I know want to change disk_size to let's say 40GBs.
=> I thought I could just add something like disk_size=40 and done.
terraform plan tells me I need to replace the node. This is a 1 node cluster, so not good. And even if it were I don't want to e.g. drain nodes. That's why I thought we are using managed k8s like EKS.
Expected behaviour: since these are elastic volumes I should be able to upsize but not downsize, why is that not possible? I can def. do so from the AWS UI.
Sure with a slightly scary warning:
Are you sure that you want to modify volume vol-xx?
It may take some time for performance changes to take full effect.
You may need to extend the OS file system on the volume to use any newly-allocated space
But I can work with the provided docs on that: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/recognize-expanded-volume-linux.html?icmpid=docs_ec2_console
Any guidelines on how to up the storage? If I do so with the UI but don't touch Terraform then my EKS state will be nuked/out of sync.
To my knowledge, there is currently no way to resize an EKS node volume without recreating the node using Terraform.
Fortunately, there is a workaround: As you also found out, you can directly change the node size via the AWS UI or API. To update your state file afterward, you can run terraform apply -refresh-only to download the latest data (e.g., the increased node volume size). After that, you can change the node size in your Terraform plan to keep both plan and state in sync.
For the future, you might want to look into moving to ephemeral nodes as (at least my) experience shows that you will have unforeseeable changes to clusters and nodes from time to time. Already planning with replaceable nodes in mind will make these changes substantially easier.
By using the terraform-aws-eks terraform module you are actually following the "ephemeral nodes" paradigm, because for both ways of creating instances (self-managed workers or managed node groups) the module is creating Autoscaling Groups that create EC2 instances out of a Launch Template.
ASG and Launch Templates are specifically designed so that you don't care anymore about specific nodes, and rather you just care about the number of nodes. This means that for updating the nodes, you just replace them with new ones, which will use the new updated launch template (with more GBs for example, or with a new updated AMI, or a new instance type).
This is called "rolling updates", and it can be done manually (adding new instances, then draining the node, then deleting the old node), with scripts (see: eks-rolling-update in github by Hellofresh), or it can be done automagically if you use the AWS managed nodes (the ones you are actually using when specifying "node_groups", that is why if you add more GB, it will replace the node automatically when you run apply).
And this paradigm is the most common when operating Kubernetes in the cloud (and also very common on-premise datacenters when using virtualization).
Option 1) Self Managed Workers
With self managed nodes, when you change a parameter like disk_size or instance_type, it will change the Launch Template. It will update the $latest version tag, which is commonly where the ASG is pointing to (although can be changed). This means that old instances will not see any change, but new ones will have the updated configuration.
If you want to change the existing instances, you actually want to replace them with new ones. That is what this ephemeral nodes paradigm is.
One by one you can drain the old instances while increasing the number of desired_instances on the ASG, or let the cluster autoscaler do the job. Alternatively, you can use an automated script which does this for you for each ASG: https://github.com/hellofresh/eks-rolling-update
In terraform_aws_eks module, you create self managed workers by either using worker_groups or worker_groups_launch_template (recommended) field
Option 2) Managed Nodes
Managed nodes is an EKS-specific feature. You configure them very similarly, but in reality, it is an abstraction, and AWS will create the actual underlying ASG.
You can specify a Launch Template to be used by the ASG and its version. Some config can be specified at the managed node level (i.e. AMI and instance_types) and at the Launch Template (if it wasn't specified in the former).
Any change on the node group level config, or on the Launch Template version, will trigger an automatic rolling update, which will replace all old instances.
You can delay the rolling update by just not pointing to the $latest version (or pointing to $default, and not updating the $default tag when changing the LT).
In terraform_aws_eks module, you create self managed workers by using the node_groups field. You can also play with these settings: create_launch_template=true and set_instance_types_on_lt=true if you want the module to create the LT for you (alternatively you can just not use it, or pass a reference to one); and to set the instance_type on such LT as specified above.
But behavior is similar to worker groups. In no case you will have your existing instances changed. You can only change them manually.
However, there is an alternative: The manual way
You can use the EKS module to create the control plane, but then use a regular EC2 resource in terraform (https://registry.terraform.io/providers/hashicorp/aws/latest/docs/resources/instance) to create one ore multiple (using count or for_each) instances.
If you create the instances using the aws_instance resource, then terraform will patch those instances (updated-in-place) when any change is allowed (i.e. increasing the root volue GB or the instance type; whereas changing the AMI will force a replacement).
The only tricky part, is that you need to configure the cloud-init script to make the instance join the cluster (something that is automatically done by the EKS module when using self/managed node groups).
However, it is very possible, and you can borrow the script from the module and plug it into the aws_instance's user_data field (https://registry.terraform.io/providers/hashicorp/aws/latest/docs/resources/instance#user_data)
In this case (when talking about disk_size), however, you still need to manually (either by SSH, or by running an hacky exec using terraform) to patch the XFS filesystem so it sees the increased disk space.
Another alternative: Consider Kubernetes storage
That said, there is also another alternative for certain use cases. If you want to increase the disk space of those instances because of one of your applications using a hostPath, then it might be the case that you can use a kubernetes built-in storage solution using the EBS CSI driver.
For example, I manage an ElasticSearch cluster in Kubernetes (and deploy it from terraform with the helm module), and it uses dynamic storage provisioning to request an EBS volume (note that performance is the same, because both root and this other volume are EBS volumes). EBS CSI driver supports volume expansion, so I can just increase this disk by changing a terraform variable.
To conclude, I would not recommend the aws_instance way, unless you understand it and are sure you really want it. It may make sense in certain cases, but definitely not common
We have a cluster of 3 nodes, 2 of them are offline (missing) and I cannot get them to rejoin the cluster automatically only the master is Online.
Usually, you can use innodb admin:
var cluster = dba.getCluster();
but I cannot use the cluster instance because the metadata is not up to date. But I cannot upgrade the meta data because the missing members are required to be online to use dba.upgradeMetadata(). (Catch 22)
I tried to dissolve the cluster by using:
var cluster = dba.rebootClusterFromCompleteOutage();
cluster.dissolve({force:true});
but this requires the metadata to be updated as well.
Question is, how do I dissolve the cluster completely or upgrade the metadata so that I can use the cluster. methods.
This "chicken-egg" issue was fixed in MySQL Shell 8.0.20. dba.rebootClusterFromCompleteOutage() is now allowed in such situation:
BUG#30661129 – DBA.UPGRADEMETADATA() AND DBA.REBOOTCLUSTERFROMCOMPLETEOUTAGE() BLOCK EACH OTHER
More info at: https://mysqlserverteam.com/mysql-shell-adminapi-whats-new-in-8-0-20/
If you have a cluster where each node upgrades to the latest version of mysql and the cluster isn't fully operational and you need to update your metadata for mysqlsh, you'll need to use an older version of mysqlsh for example, https://downloads.mysql.com/archives/shell/ to get the cluster back up and running. Once it is up and running you can use the dba.upgrademetadata on the R/W node - make sure you update all of your routers or they will lose connection.
I want to scale an application with workers.
There could be 1 worker or 100, and I want to scale them seamlessly.
The idea is using replica set. However due to domain-specific reasons, the appropriate way to scale them is for each worker to know its: ID and the total number of workers.
For example, in case I have 3 workers, I'd have this:
id:0, num_workers:3
id:1, num_workers:3
id:2, num_workers:3
Is there a way of using kubernetes to do so?
I pass this information in command line arguments to the app, and I assume it would be fine having it in environment variables too.
It's ok on size changes for all workers to be killed and new ones spawned.
Before giving the kubernetes-specific answer, I wanted to point out that it seems like the problem is trying to push cluster-coordination down into the app, which is almost by definition harder than using a distributed system primitive designed for that task. For example, if every new worker identifies themselves in etcd, then they can watch keys to detect changes, meaning no one needs to destroy a running application just to update its list of peers, their contact information, their capacity, current workload, whatever interesting information you would enjoy having while building a distributed worker system.
But, on with the show:
If you want stable identifiers, then StatefulSets is the modern answer to that. Whether that is an exact fit for your situation depends on whether (for your problem domain) id:0 being "rebooted" still counts as id:0 or the fact that it has stopped and started now disqualifies it from being id:0.
The running list of cluster size is tricky. If you are willing to be flexible in the launch mechanism, then you can have a pre-launch binary populate the environment right before spawning the actual worker (that example is for reading from etcd directly, but the same principle holds for interacting with the kubernetes API, then launching).
You could do that same trick in a more static manner by having an initContainer write the current state of affairs to a file, which the app would then read in. Or, due to all Pod containers sharing networking, the app could contact a "sidecar" container on localhost to obtain that information via an API.
So far so good, except for the
on size changes for all workers to be killed and new one spawned
The best answer I have for that requirement is that if the app must know its peers at launch time, then I am pretty sure you have left the realm of "scale $foo --replicas=5" and entered into the "destroy the peers and start all afresh" realm, with kubectl delete pods -l some-label=of-my-pods; which is, thankfully, what updateStrategy: type: OnDelete does, when combined with the delete pods command.
In the end, I've tried something different. I've used kubernetes API to get the number of running pods with the same label. This is python code utilizing kubernetes python client.
import socket
from kubernetes import client
from kubernetes import config
config.load_incluster_config()
v1 = client.CoreV1Api()
with open(
'/var/run/secrets/kubernetes.io/serviceaccount/namespace',
'r'
) as f:
namespace = f.readline()
workers = []
for pod in v1.list_namespaced_pod(
namespace,
watch=False,
label_selector="app=worker"
).items:
workers.append(pod.metadata.name)
workers.sort()
num_workers = len(workers)
worker_id = workers.index(socket.gethostname())
After installing and setting up a 2 node cluster of postgres-xl 9.2, where coordinator and GTM are running on node1 and the Datanode is set up on node2.
Now before I use it in production I have to deliver a DRP solution.
Does anyone have a DR plan for postgres-xl 9.2 architechture?
Best Regards,
Aviel B.
So from what you described you only have one of each node... What are you expecting to recover too??
Postgres-XL is a clustered solution. If you only have one of each node then you have no cluster and not only are you not getting any scaling advantage it is actually going to run slower than stand alone Postgres. Plus you have nothing to recover to. If you lose either node you have completely lost the database.
Also the docs recommend you put the coordinator and data nodes on the same server if you are going to combine nodes.
So for the simplest solution in Replication mode you would need something like
Server1 GTM
Server2 GTM Proxy
Server3 Coordinator 1 & DataNode 1
Server4 Coordinator 2 & DataNode 2
Postgres-XL has no fail over support so any failure will require manual intervention.
If you use the replication DISTRIBUTED BY option you would just remove the failing node from the cluster and restart everything.
If you used another DISTRIBUTED BY options then data is shared over multiple nodes which means if you lose any node you lose everything. So for this option you will need to have a slave instance of every data node and coordinator node you have. If one of the nodes fails then you would remove that node from the cluster and replace it with its slave backup node. Then restart it all.