CONTEXT: I have been learning Kubernetes and trying to get some hands-on experience. I have been using AKS to abstract the complexity of having to deal with the control plane (and because I have a free student azure account). I am deploying a NodeJS app that connects to the MongoDB database. So far the deployment has been successful but I am using MongoDB Atlas and connecting to it.
Based on the little I have learned about Stateful sets, the MongoDB Atlas service seems a lot easier and more convenient but my question is, when would it be a better idea to consider deploying a stateful set with MongoDB database? (running on the pod) What's more cost-effective? More easily scalable?
I realize the questions might be a little bit vague but I am just getting started with Kubernetes..
disclaimer: This is not a production application, just something simple I am using to learn K8S
Official docs docs uses statefullset and that would make sense. Generally all DB kind of applications deployed as statefullset. Because there can be states that nodes are not sync with each other and that would create data inconsistencies between nodes(mongodb nodes not kubernetes).
You can deploy MongoDB as deployment. I have seen it deployed. But most clients use a connection string to connect(a string of multiple node addresses). And since kubernetes exposes statefullsets with headless services you should be okay.
For learning purpose, I advice you to deploy your MongoDB in a StatefulSet. Then you can learn how it works and what problem you could encounter with this Kubernetes object.
For production application, I advice to never deploy a database in a StatefulSet if you don't need it. In fact, StatefulSet will come with a lot of problematics that you might not need to manage.
Sometimes, companies rules restrict to host their data on external company storage.
To know if you need to put your database in a StatefulSet, the question I try to answer is:
Should my DB be hosted on premise (for privacy)?
Should my DB be scalable?
Should my DB be updated frequently?
You can find a list of pros/cons on the documentation.
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
Is there a way to enable caching between pods in Kubernetes cluster? For eg: Lets say we have more than 1 pods running on High availability mode.And we want to share some value between them using distributed caching between the pods.Is this something possible?
There are some experimental projects to let you reuse the etcd that powers the cluster, but I probably wouldn’t. Just run your own using etcd-operator or something. The specifics will massively depend on what your exact use case and software is, distributed databases are among the most complex things ever.
Been working on a web app with a simple database model that only needs CRUD operations, figured MongoDB would be perfect for it. The most important constraints of the project is that it be able to scale from a small amount of users to a large amount. I’ve been looking at the cloud launcher and I’ve noticed that the most popular MongoDB solution advertises a cost of ~$350/mo. This is a surprisingly large amount that makes me consider using cloud sql for my database instead. Is there a better way to deploy MongoDB to GCP that’s more fitted to my use case? I’ve been reading about automatic scaling with kubernetes but I can’t find anything about price. Any and all advice is greatly appreciated
I haven't used mongodb with kubernetes but we do use the cloud launcher solution at work. We use 2 nodes(n1-standard-1) and an arbiter(micro) + 100GB storage on each node which comes up around $100 a month. You would need a replicaset in a production environment so this seems to be a reasonable base cost.
Kubernetes does not provide a lot of advantages over the classic GCE deployment for mongodb compared to a webserver. Setting up a replicaset on kubernetes is a bit more work compared to GCE setup. https://medium.com/google-cloud/mongodb-replica-sets-with-kubernetes-d96606bd9474 and http://blog.kubernetes.io/2017/01/running-mongodb-on-kubernetes-with-statefulsets.html should serve as decent references but wouldn't lower your costs. Scaling nodes would be slightly easier though but does not strictly translate to scaling mongodb.
I have lately been working on a similar solution.
GCP announced that they don't charge for Kubernetes cluster management but only for resources used by it (instances, network ...):
https://cloud.google.com/kubernetes-engine/pricing
In general, databases are high maintenance (data mounts, backups, migrations...), so I would not start running Mongo on Kubernetes right away. You could get there but it will be more complicated than deploying your web app on Kubernetes.
Better to use MongoDB as a service that supports GCP (e.g. MongoDB Atlas), I have done so myself and see a few other companies do that.
If you scale gradually you should be able to control your costs.
The web app itself should be easy to deploy and maintain on Kubernetes.
I recently ran across this Netflix Blog article http://techblog.netflix.com/2013/08/deploying-netflix-api.html
They are talking about red/black deployment where they run the old and new code side by side and direct the production traffic to both of them. If something goes wrong they do a rollback.
How does the directing of the traffic work? and is it possible to adapt this strategy with e.g two Docker containers?
One way of directing traffic is using Weighted Routing, as you can do in AWS Route 53.
Initially you have 100% traffic going to server(s) with old code. Then gradually you change that to have some traffic to server(s) with new code.
Also, as you can read in this blog, you can use Docker to achieve it:
Even with the best testing, things can go wrong after deployment and a
rollback may be required. Containers make this easy and we’ve brought
similar tools to the operating system with Project Atomic. Red/Black
deployments can be done throughout the entire stack with Atomic and
Docker.
I think they use Spinnaker to implement a red/black strategy. https://spinnaker.io/docs/concepts/