As I dive into the world of Cloud Composer, Airflow, Google Kubernetes Engine, and Kubernetes I've not yet found a good answer to what exactly makes Cloud Composer better than Helm and GKE.
Here are some things I've found that could be unique to Composer but mostly seem like they could be handled by GKE.
On their homepage:
End-to-end integration with Google Cloud products including BigQuery, Dataflow, Dataproc, Datastore, Cloud Storage, Pub/Sub, and AI Platform gives users the freedom to fully orchestrate their pipeline.
On the features page:
Identity-Aware Proxy protects the interface
Cloud Composer associates a Cloud Storage bucket with the environment. The associated bucket stores the DAGs, logs, custom plugins, and data for the environment.
The downsides of Composer I've seen include:
It takes many hours to spin up a new instance
It doesn't support Kubernetes Executor
It is risky to change the underlying GKE config because it could be changed back by a composer update
There are often errors that happen when auto-scaling often happen but are documented as known
Upgrading environments is still beta
To be clear, I'm not saying Cloud Composer is bad. I'm just having trouble seeing why people like it. When I've asked folks why it is better than Helm + GKE they haven't had any compelling answers despite that they can tell many stories of Composer being unpredictable and having lots of issues.
Are you comparing the same things?
On one side, GKE, you have a container orchestrator. Declare that you want, it will deploy and maintain the stability of the cluster according with declared configuration. This configuration can be packaged with helm to write it in an easier mode. Because you deploy container, you can use the language that you want in your services.
On the other side, you have a workflow manager, with scheduler, retry policies, parallel task, context forwarding. you write DAG in python (only!) and you have operators to interact with external product/services. It's mainly designed for data processing and used a lot by data scientist and data engineering team.
Note: Cloud Composer is deployed on top of GKE (scheduler and worker), redis, app engine and Cloud SQL.
You compare 2 different worlds: Ops world (GKE/Helm) and the App/Data world (Composer/Airflow). Have a look to this new video
Update 1:
My bad, I didn't understand!!! Anyway, personally I don't want to manage things by myself: a cluster, the update of K8S, VM patching, replicas, snapshot, backup/restore,...
If someone can do this for me, I prefer, and managed services are perfect for me!!
Do you ask yourselves this question about Cloud SQL and a database managed by yourselves on a Compute Engine instance? If not (because Cloud SQL solve a lot of boring issues), my opinion is the same for Composer.
But it's an opinion, I didn't test both and compare the performance, cost and easiness.
Related
I work with teams members to develop a microservices architecture but I have a problem with the way to work. Indeed, I have too many microservices and when I run them during my development, it consumes too memory even with a good workstation. So I use docker compose to build and execute my MSA but it takes a long time. One often hears about how technically build an MSA but never about the way to work efficiently to build it. How do you do in this case ? How do you work ? Do you use tools or any others to improve and facilitate your developments. I've heard about skaffold but I don't see what the difference is with docker compose or with a simple ci/cd in a cluster env for example. Feel free to give tips and your opinion. Thanks
I've had a fair amount of experience with microservices and local development and here's been some approaches I've seen:
Run all the things locally on docker or k8. If using k8, then a tool like skaffolding can make it easier to run and debug a service locally in the IDE but put it into your local k8 so that it can communicate with other k8 services. It works OK but running more than 4 or 5 full services locally in k8 or docker requires dedicating a substantial amount of CPU and memory.
Build mock versions of all your services. Use those locally and for integration tests. The mock services are intentionally much simpler and therefore easier to run lots of them locally. Obvious downside is that you have to build mock version of every service, and you can easily miss bugs that are caused by mock services not behaving like the real service. Record/replay tools like Hoveryfly can help in building mock services.
Give every developer their own Cloud environment. Run most services in the cloud but use a tool like Telepresence to swap locally running services in and out of the cloud cluster. This eliminates the problem of running too many services on a single machine but can be spendy to maintain separate cloud sandboxes for each developer. You also need a DevOps resource to help developers when their cloud sandbox gets out of whack.
Eliminate unnecessary microservice complexity and consolidate all your services into 1 or 2 monoliths. Enjoy being able to run everything locally as a single service. Accept the fact that a microservice architecture is overkill for most companies. Too many people choose a microservice architecture upfront before their needs demand it. Or they do it out of fear that they will need it in the future. Inevitably this leads to guessing how they should decompose the system into many microservices, and getting the boundaries and contracts wrong, which makes it just as hard or harder to fix in the future compared to a monolith. And they incur the costs of microservices years before they need to. Microservices make everything more costly and painful, from local development to deployment. For companies like Netflix and Amazon, it's necessary. For most of us, it's not.
I prefer option 4 if at all possible. Otherwise option 2 or 3 in that order. Option 1 should be avoided in my opinion but it is probably the option everyone tries first.
In GKE and assuming you have a private cluster. You can utilize port forwarding while hooked up to the GKE environment through the CLI. Create a script that forwards your local ports to the GKE environment. I believe on the services tab in your cluster is where you will find the "port-forwarding" button that will give you the CMD command. This way you can work on one microservice with all of its traffic being routed to the actual DEV cluster. This prevents you from having to run multiple projects at the same time.
I would say create a staging environment which will have all services running. This staging environment will specifically be curated for development. E.g. if it's deployed using k8s then you expose some ports using nodeport service if you need them for your specific microservice. And have a DevOps pipeline to always keep this environment up to date with the code.
This environment should always be built from master branch. If you have single repo for app or repo per service, it's fair assumption that the will always have most recent code when you create your dev/feature branch.
Then when you want to develop a feature or fix a bug you checkout your microservice. And if you are following the microservice pattern appropriately, that single microservice should be an executable and have it's own docker file and should be debuggable from your local IDE. Many enterprises follow this pattern, and enforce at the organization level that the master branch is always production ready and high quality.
Let's say, you discover a bug in some other microservice running in k8s cluster. You will very likely get tempted to find a way to debug that remote microservice. However, that should be written as a bug for the team that owns the microservice. If your team owns it then you fix it and then start working on your feature. If you really think you need to debug multiple microservices, then I think you have real tight coupling between the services or you don't really need the microservice architecture.
We have a kind of evaluation job which consists of several thousand invocations of a legacy binary with various inputs, each of which running like a minute. The individual runs are perfectly parallelizable (one instance per core).
What is the state of the art to do this in a hybrid cloud scenario?
Kubernetes itself does not seem to provide an interface for prioritizing or managing waiting jobs. Jenkins would be good at these points, but feels like a hack. Of course, we could hack something ourselves, but the problem should be sufficiently generic to already have an out-of-the box solution.
There are a lot of frameworks that helps managing jobs in Kubernetes cluster. The most popular are:
Argo for orchestrating parallel jobs on Kubernetes. Workflows is implemented as a Kubernetes CRD (Custom Resource Definition).
Airflow - has a modular architecture and uses a message queue to orchestrate an arbitrary number of workers. Also take a look for kubernetes-executor.
I recommend you to look for this video which describe each of framework and help you decide which is better for you.
You may be interested in following aricles about using Mesos for Hybrid Cloud
Xue, Noha & Haugerud, Hårek & Yazidi, Anis. (2017). Towards a Hybrid Cloud Platform Using Apache Mesos. 143-148. 10.1007/978-3-319-60774-0_12.
Hybrid cloud technology is becoming increasingly popular as it merges private and public clouds to bring the best of two worlds together. However, due to the heterogeneous cloud installation, facilitating a hybrid cloud setup is not simple. Despite the availability of some commercial solutions to build a hybrid cloud, an open source implementation is still unavailable. In this paper, we try to bridge the gap by providing an open source implementation by leveraging the power of Apache Mesos. We build a hybrid cloud on the top of multiple cloud platforms, private and public.
Apache Mesos For All Your Hybrid Cloud Needs
Choosing the Best Approach to Hybrid Cloud
Hoping that there is some good insight into how to handle orchestration amount microservices in an on prem smaller company environment. Currently, the systems that we are looking to convert from monolithic to microservices like the rest of the world :).
The problem I'm having with as an architect, is justifying the big learning curve and server requirements with the resources we have at the moment. I can easily see us having 50ish microservices, which I feel could be on that line of using kubernetes or not.
The thing is, if we don't, how do we monitor if it is on-prem. We do use Azure Devops, so I'm wondering if this would safice for deployment parts.
Thanks!
This comes down to a debate over essential vs accidental complexity. The verdict is in from companies that k8s strikes a good balance vs swarm and other orchestrators are barely talked about in the industry.
https://www.reactiveops.com/blog/is-kubernetes-overkill
The platforms that build on kubernetes are still emerging to offer a simpler interface for those wanting a higher level of abstraction but aren't mature enough yet. GKE offers a very easy way to just deal with workloads, AKS is still maturing so you will likely face some bugs but it is tightly integrated with Azure Devops.
Microsoft is all-in on k8s although their on-prem offering doesn't seem fully fledged yet. GKE on-prem and Openshift 4.1 offer fully managed on-prem (if using vSphere) for list price of $1200/core/year. https://nedinthecloud.com/2019/02/19/azure-stack-kubernetes-cluster-is-not-aks/
Other ways of deploying on prem are emerging so long as you're comfortable with managing the compute, storage and network yourself. Installing and upgrading are becoming easier (see e.g. https://github.com/kubermatic/kubeone which builds on the cluster-api abstraction). For bare metal ambitious projects like talos are making k8s specific immutable OSes (https://github.com/talos-systems/talos).
AWS is still holding out hope for lock-in with ECS and Fargate but it remains to be seen if that will succeed.
What does Apache Mesos do that Kubernetes can't do or vice-versa?
Mesos is a Two level scheduler. Sure it grabs resource information from every machine and gives it to the top level scheduler such that frameworks like kubernetes can use to schedule containers across machines but Kubernetes can itself schedule containers across machines (No need for Mesos from this regard). so what are few things that Apache Mesos can do that Kubernetes cannot do or vice-versa?
Both Mesos and Kubernetes are n-th level containers orchestrators. This means you can achieve the same features but some kind of tasks could be done easier (read. better) on one of them. In fact, you can run Kubernetes on Mesos and vice verse.
Let's go through main differences that give some clue when you need to make a decision:
Architecture
As you pointed out Mesos is a Two-Level Scheduler and this is the main difference in architecture. This gives you the ability to create your custom scheduler (aka framework) to run your tasks. What's more, you can have more than one scheduler. All your schedulers compete for the resources that are fairly distributed using Dominant Resources Fairness algorithm (that could be replaced with custom allocator). You can also assign roles to the frameworks and tasks and assign weights to this roles to prioritize some schedulers. Roles are tightly connected with resources. Above features gives you the ability to create your own way of scheduling for different applications (e.g., Fenzo) with different heuristics based on a type of tasks you want to run. For example, when running batch tasks it's good to place them near data and time to start is not so important. On the other hand, running stateless services is independent of nodes and it's more critical to run them ASAP.
Kubernetes architecture is a single level scheduler. That means decisions where pod will be run are made in a single component. There is no such thing as resource offer. On the other hand, everything there is pluggable and built with a layered design.
Origin
Mesos was created at Twitter (formerly at Berkeley but the first production usage was at Twitter) to support their scale.
In March 2010, about a year into the Mesos project, Hindman and his Berkeley colleagues gave a talk at Twitter. At first, he was disappointed. Only about eight people showed up. But then Twitter's chief scientist told him that eight people was lot – about ten percent of the company's entire staff. And then, after the talk, three of those people approached him.
Soon, Hindman was consulting at Twitter, working hand-in-hand with those ex-Google engineers and others to expand the project. Then he joined the company as an intern. And, a year after that, he signed on as a full-time employee.
source
Kubernetes was created by Google to bring users to their cloud promising no lock-in experience. This is the same technique Amazon did with Kindle. You can read any book on it but using it with Amazon gives you the best experience. The same is true for Google. You can run Kubernetes on any cloud (public or private) but the best tooling, integration and support you'll get only on Google Cloud.
But Google and Microsoft are different. Microsoft wants to support everything on Azure, while Google wants Kubernetes everywhere. (In a sense, Microsoft is living up to the Borg name, assimilating all orchestrators, more than Google is.) And quite literally, Kubernetes is how Google is playing up to the on-premises cloud crowd giving it differentiation from AWS (which won’t sell its infrastructure as a stack with a license, although it says VMware is its private cloud partner) and Microsoft (which still doesn’t have its Azure Stack private cloud out the door). source
Community
Judging a project simply by its community size could be misleading. It's like you'd be saying that php is a great language because it has large community.
Mesos community is much smaller than Kubernetes. That's the fact. Kubernetes has financial support from many big companies including Google, Intel, Mirantis, RedHat and more while Mesos is developed mainly by Mesosphere with some support from Apple, Microsoft. Although Mesos is a mature project, its development is slow but stable. On the other hand, Kubernetes is much younger, but rapidly developed.
Meso contributors origin
The Kubernetes Community - Ian Lewis, Developer Advocate, Google
Scale
Mesos was targeted for big customers from the early beginning. It is used at Twitter, Apple, Verizon, Yelp, Netflix to run hundreds of thousands of containers on thousands of servers.
Kubernetes was started by Google to give developers Google Infrastructure experience (GIFFE). From the beginning, it was prepared for small scale up to hundreds of machines. This constraint is increased with every release but they started small to grow big. There are no public data about biggest Kubernetes installation.
Hype
Due to scale issues, Kuberntetes started to be popular among smaller companies (not cloud scale) while Mesos was targeted for enterprise users. Kubernetes is supported by Cloud Native Foundation while Mesos is Apache Foundation Project. These two foundations have different founding and sponsors. Generally, more money gives you better marketing and Kubernetes definitely did it right.
https://g.co/trends/RUuhA
Conclusion
It looks like Kubernetes already won the containers orchestrator war. But if you have some custom workloads and really big scale, Mesos could be a good choice.
The main difference is in the community size and the open source model : where DCOS is supported by Mesosphere and provide enterprise features in a commercial product only (because mesosphere isn't philanthropist), K8S has a larger community with strong contributions from different companies resulting in providing much more integrated enterprise features (multitenancy, RBAC, quota, preemption, gateways...) meaning they are easier to use, not necessarily they don't exist in DCOS.
I would globally say that :
DCOS is more battle tested for stateful and big data workloads but lacks of integration with other perimetric components including plug and play central monitoring and logging and enterprise features like security model, multi tenancy, auto updates... It was a very hard way to integrate everything for a production grade platform.
K8S is more battle tested for stateless apps and provides lots of plug and play tools like prometheus, EFK, helm... which makes the implementation of a production grade platform much easier. Next to that there is a big move on stateful workloads with statefulsets and the operator pattern which is comparable with mesos frameworks but again, K8S provides lots of tools to develop them with less costs because lots of functionalities are provided out of the box, it takes me 2 months to develop a MongoDB operator to provide MongoDB as a service in a multi tenant and secured way and I needed to learn Golang in the same time.
source
https://www.infoworld.com/article/3118345/cloud-computing/why-kubernetes-is-winning-the-container-war.html
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/10/17/docker_ee_kubernetes_support
https://www.techrepublic.com/article/these-two-vendors-are-most-likely-to-bring-kubernetes-containers-to-the-enterprise
https://www.cloudhealthtech.com/blog/container-wars-are-over-kubernetes-has-won
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12462261
I have setup a Hyperledger Fabric V1.0 Network by following the Hyperledger-fabric docs and using fabric-sdk-java client I am able to communicate with the network from my java application. Now everything is working fine in the development setup. But still I am not getting the clear picture about its production level implemenation. Looking for some valuable suggestions for the following points to make it production live.
Will it be possible to use this setup for production? then how can I build my network using this docker-compose setup? Which are the options available for production hosting of the network?
If it is possible to setup in production, should I run this docker-compose set up and all in all the peer system's, then how will I configure the docker-compose.yaml to define each of the peers/organisations which are in different system?
I have found Bluemix Blockchain Service as an alternative, but it is having high monthly charges. So is there any alternative to deploy myown Hyperledger Fabric V1.0 network by defining myown peers and organization?
I think that for a production deployment, you'd likely want to implement Swarm or Kubernetes. See Hyperledger Cello for instance. You will also want to have a process and automation for managing the code going forward. Updating images, chaincode, etc. Further, you might want to further automate some of the on-boarding process which at present is rather bare bones.
As noted above, the Docker Compose is designed for a single system. You'd likely want to use Swarm or Kubernetes to manage nodes on different systems and you want decentralized operations when you are engaging multiple entities into a consortia where the members want to choose where they run their nodes.
There is a developer sandbox offering that you can deploy to IBM's Container service (Kubernetes) but you won't be getting the benefits of the crypto acceleration, HSM, and added security of the LinuxOne platform on which IBM deploys the IBM Blockchain Platform. The good things in life may be free, but I would want to have the added value of a vendor provided cloud offering like IBM Blockchain Platform for my production system. YMMV.