I am monitoring the servers in our local lab environment using the components in tick stack by installing the telegraf agent on each machine which updates the cpu,disk and memory stats to an InfluxDB.I have the tick scripts in the kapacitor which raises the alerts,but my problem here is each server has a different metric value to monitor(like server1 should be alerted on 80% CPU usage and server2 to be alerted on 50% CPU usage) so which means should i be writing multiple scripts for each of the server as it will be difficult to monitor and maintain.Can any one please guide on this.
Thanks
You can easily create templated tasks with Kapacitor.
https://docs.influxdata.com/kapacitor/v1.5/working/template_tasks/
But to me it's very restricted, so i wrote an jinja2 template what generates tasks by yaml configuration. I just mention it, if you meet some restrictions in Kapacitor templates.
Related
Deployed Rundeck (rundeck/rundeck:4.2.0) importing and discovering my inventory using Ansible Resource Model Source. Having 300 nodes, out of which statistically ~150 are accessible/online, the rest is offline (IOT devices). All working fine.
My challenge is when creating jobs i can assign only those nodes which are online, while i wanted to assign ALL nodes (including those offline) and keep retrying the job for the failed ones only. Only this way i could track the completeness of my deployment. Ideally i would love rundeck to be intelligent enough to automatically deploy the job as soon as my node goes back online.
Any ideas/hints how to achieve that ?
Thanks,
The easiest way is to use the health checks feature (only available on PagerDuty Process Automation On-Prem, formerly "Rundeck Enterprise"), in that way you can use a node filter only for "healthy" (up) nodes.
Using this approach (e.g: configuring a command health check against all nodes) you can dispatch your jobs only for "up" nodes (from a global set of nodes), this is possible using the .* as node filter and !healthcheck:status: HEALTHY as exclude node filter. If any "offline" node "turns on", the filter/exclude filter should work automatically.
On Ansible/Rundeck integration it works using the following environment variable: ANSIBLE_HOST_KEY_CHECKING=False or using host_key_checking=false on the ansible.cfg file (at [defaults] section).
In that way, you can see all ansible hosts in your Rundeck nodes, and your commands/jobs should be dispatched only for online nodes, if any "offline" node changes their status, the filter should work.
I'm running some I/O intensive Python code on Dask and want to increase the number of threads per worker. I've deployed a Kubernetes cluster that runs Dask distributed via helm. I see from the worker deployment template that the number of threads for a worker is set to the number of CPUs, but I'd like to set the number of threads higher unless that's an anti-pattern. How do I do that?
It looks like from this similar question that I can ssh to the dask scheduler and spin up workers with dask-worker? But ideally I'd be able to configure the worker resources via helm so that I don't have to interact with the scheduler other than submitting jobs to it via the Client.
Kubernetes resource limits and requests should match the --memory-limit and --nthreads parameters given to the dask-worker command. For more information please follow the link 1 (Best practices described on Dask`s official documentation) and 2
Threading in Python is a careful art and is really dependent on your code. To do the easy one, -nprocs should almost certainly be 1, if you want more processes, launch more replicas instead. For the thread count, first remember the GIL means only one thread can be running Python code at a time. So you only get concurrency gains under two main sitations: 1) some threads are blocked on I/O like waiting to hear back from a database or web API or 2) some threads are running non-GIL-bound C code inside NumPy or friends. For the second situation, you still can't get more concurrency than the number of CPUs since that's just how many slots there are to run at once, but the first can benefit from more threads than CPUs in some situations.
There's a limitation of Dask's helm chart that doesn't allow for the setting of --nthreads in the chart. I confirmed this with the Dask team and filed an issue: https://github.com/helm/charts/issues/18708.
In the meantime, use Dask Kubernetes for a higher degree of customization.
I have a python app that builds a dataset for a machine learning task on GCP.
Currently I have to start an instance of a VM that we have, and then SSH in, and run the app, which will complete in 2-24 hours depending on the size of the dataset requested.
Once the dataset is complete the VM needs to be shutdown so we don't incur additional charges.
I am looking to streamline this process as much as possible, so that we have a "1 click" or "1 command" solution, but I'm not sure the best way to go about it.
From what I've read about so far it seems like containers might be a good way to go, but I'm inexperienced with docker.
Can I setup a container that will pip install the latest app from our private GitHub and execute the dataset build before shutting down? How would I pass information to the container such as where to get the config file etc? It's conceivable that we will have multiple datasets being generated at the same time based on different config files.
Is there a better gcloud feature that suits our purpose more effectively than containers?
I'm struggling to get information regarding these basic questions, it seems like container tutorials are dominated by web apps.
It would be useful to have a batch-like container service that runs a container until its process completes. I'm unsure whether such a service exists. I'm most familiar with Google Cloud Platform and this provides a wealth of compute and container services. However -- to your point -- these predominantly scale by (HTTP) requests.
One possibility may be Cloud Run and to trigger jobs using Cloud Pub/Sub. I see there's async capabilities too and this may be interesting (I've not explored).
Another runtime for you to consider is Kubernetes itself. While Kubernetes requires some overhead in having Google, AWS or Azure manage a cluster for you (I strongly recommend you don't run Kubernetes yourself) and some inertia in the capacity of the cluster's nodes vs. the needs of your jobs, as you scale the number of jobs, you will smooth these needs. A big advantage with Kubernetes is that it will scale (nodes|pods) as you need them. You tell Kubernetes to run X container jobs, it does it (and cleans-up) without much additional management on your part.
I'm biased and approach the container vs image question mostly from a perspective of defaulting to container-first. In this case, you'd receive several benefits from containerizing your solution:
reproducible: the same image is more probable to produce the same results
deployability: container run vs. manage OS, app stack, test for consistency etc.
maintainable: smaller image representing your app, less work to maintain it
One (beneficial!?) workflow change if you choose to use containers is that you will need to build your images before using them. Something like Knative combines these steps but, I'd stick with doing-this-yourself initially. A common solution is to trigger builds (Docker, GitHub Actions, Cloud Build) from your source code repo. Commonly you would run tests against the images that are built but you may also run your machine-learning tasks this way too.
Your containers would container only your code. When you build your container images, you would pip install, perhaps pip install --requirement requirements.txt to pull the appropriate packages. Your data (models?) are better kept separate from your code when this makes sense. When your runtime platform runs containers for you, you provide configuration information (environment variables and|or flags) to the container.
The use of a startup script seems to better fit the bill compared to containers. The instance always executes startup scripts as root, thus you can do anything you like, as the command will be executed as root.
A startup script will perform automated tasks every time your instance boots up. Startup scripts can perform many actions, such as installing software, performing updates, turning on services, and any other tasks defined in the script.
Keep in mind that a startup script cannot stop an instance but you can stop an instance through the guest operating system.
This would be the ideal solution for the question you posed. This would require you to make a small change in your Python app where the Operating system shuts off when the dataset is complete.
Q1) Can I setup a container that will pip install the latest app from our private GitHub and execute the dataset build before shutting down?
A1) Medium has a great article on installing a package from a private git repo inside a container. You can execute the dataset build before shutting down.
Q2) How would I pass information to the container such as where to get the config file etc?
A2) You can use ENV to set an environment variable. These will be available within the container.
You may consider looking into Docker for more information about container.
I have deployed my dockerized micro services in AWS server using Elastic Beanstalk which is written using Akka-HTTP(https://github.com/theiterators/akka-http-microservice) and Scala.
I have allocated 512mb memory size for each docker and performance problems. I have noticed that the CPU usage increased when server getting more number of requests(like 20%, 23%, 45%...) & depends on load, then it automatically came down to the normal state (0.88%). But Memory usage keeps on increasing for every request and it failed to release unused memory even after CPU usage came to the normal stage and it reached 100% and docker killed by itself and restarted again.
I have also enabled auto scaling feature in EB to handle a huge number of requests. So it created another duplicate instance only after CPU usage of the running instance is reached its maximum.
How can I setup auto-scaling to create another instance once memory usage is reached its maximum limit(i.e 500mb out of 512mb)?
Please provide us a solution/way to resolve these problems as soon as possible as it is a very critical problem for us?
CloudWatch doesn't natively report memory statistics. But there are some scripts that Amazon provides (usually just referred to as the "CloudWatch Monitoring Scripts for Linux) that will get the statistics into CloudWatch so you can use those metrics to build a scaling policy.
The Elastic Beanstalk documentation provides some information on installing the scripts on the Linux platform at http://docs.aws.amazon.com/elasticbeanstalk/latest/dg/customize-containers-cw.html.
However, this will come with another caveat in that you cannot use the native Docker deployment JSON as it won't pick up the .ebextensions folder (see Where to put ebextensions config in AWS Elastic Beanstalk Docker deploy with dockerrun source bundle?). The solution here would be to create a zip of your application that includes the JSON file and .ebextensions folder and use that as the deployment artifact.
There is also one thing I am unclear on and that is if these metrics will be available to choose from under the Configuration -> Scaling section of the application. You may need to create another .ebextensions config file to set the custom metric such as:
option_settings:
aws:elasticbeanstalk:customoption:
BreachDuration: 3
LowerBreachScaleIncrement: -1
MeasureName: MemoryUtilization
Period: 60
Statistic: Average
Threshold: 90
UpperBreachScaleIncrement: 2
Now, even if this works, if the application will not lower its memory usage after scaling and load goes down then the scaling policy would just continue to trigger and reach max instances eventually.
I'd first see if you can get some garbage collection statistics for the JVM and maybe tune the JVM to do garbage collection more often to help bring memory down faster after application load goes down.
I'm comparing salt-cloud and terraform as tools to manage our infrastructure at GCE. We use salt stack to manage VM configurations, so I would naturally prefer to use salt-cloud as an integral part of the stack and phase out terraform as a legacy thing.
However my use case is critical on VM deployment time because we offer PaaS solution with VMs deployed on customer request, so need to deliver ready VMs on a click of a button within seconds.
And what puzzles me is why salt-cloud takes so long to deploy basic machines.
I have created neck-to-neck simple test with deploying three VMs based on default CentOS7 image using both terraform and salt-cloud (both in parallel mode). And the time difference is stunning - where terraform needs around 30 seconds to deploy requested machines (which is similar to time needed to deploy through GCE GUI), salt-cloud takes around 220 seconds to deploy exactly same machines under same account in the same zone. Especially strange is that first 130 seconds salt-cloud does not start deploying and does seemingly nothing at all, and only after around 130 seconds pass it shows message deploying VMs and those VMs appear in GUI as in deployment.
Is there something obvious that I'm missing about salt-cloud that makes it so slow? Can it be sped up somehow?
I would prefer to user full salt stack, but with current speed issues it has I cannot really afford that.
Note that this answer is a speculation based on what I understood about terraform and salt-cloud, I haven't verified with an experiment!
I think the reason is that Terraform keeps state of the previous run (either locally or remotely), while salt-cloud doesn't keep state and so queries the cloud before actually provisioning anything.
These two approaches (keeping state or querying before doing something) are needed, since both tools are idempotent (you can run them multiple times safely).
For example, I think that if you remove the state file of Terraform and re-run it, it will assume there is nothing in the cloud and will actually instantiate a duplicate. This is not to imply that terraform does it wrong, it is to show that state is important and Terraform docs say clearly that when operating in a team the state should be saved remotely, exactly to avoid this kind of problem.
Following my line of though, this should also mean that if you either run salt-cloud in verbose debug mode or look at the network traffic generated by it, in the first 130 secs you mention (before it says "deploying VMs"), you should see queries from salt-cloud to the cloud provider to dynamically construct the state.
Last point, the fact that salt-cloud doesn't store the state of a previous run doesn't mean that it is automatically safe to use in a team environment. It is safe to use as long as no two team members run it at the same time. On the other hand, terraform with remote state on Consul allows for example to lock, so that team concurrent usage will always be safe.