I have seen HPA can be scaled based on CPU usage. That is super cool.
However, the scenario I have is: the stateful app (container in pod) is one to one mapping based on the downstream API results. For example, the downstream api results return maximum and expected capacity like {response: 10}. I would like to see replicaSet or statefulSet or other kubernetes controller can obtain this value and auto scale the pods to 10. Unfortunately, the pod replicas is hardcoded in the yaml file.
If I am doing it manually, I think I can do it via running start a scheduler. The job of the scheduler is to watch the api and run the kubectl scale command based on the downstream api results. This can be error prone and there is another system I need to maintain. I guess this logic should belong to a kubernetes controller ?
May I ask has someone done this stuff before and what is the way to configure it ?
Thanks in advance.
Unfortunately, it is not possible to use an HPA in that mode, but your conception about how to scale is right.
HPA is designed to analyze metrics and decide how many pods need to be spawned based on those metrics. It is using scaling rules and can only spawn pods one by one based on the result of its decision.
Moreover, it using standard Kubernetes API for scale pods.
Because a logic of HPA is already in your application, you can use the same API to scale your pods. Btw, kubectl scale is using the same way to interact with a cluster.
So, you can use i.e. Cronjob, with a small application which will call API of your application every 5 minutes and call kubectl scale with proper name of deployment to scale your app.
But, please keep in mind, you need to somehow control the frequency of up- and downscaling of pods, it will make your application more stable. That’s why I think that scaling not more often than once per 5 minutes is OK, but trying to do it every minute generally is not the best idea.
And of course, you can create a daemon and run it using Deployment, but I think Cronjob solution is more easy and faster to implement.
Related
I have read about Kubernetes CronJobs, but I'm looking for a more flexible scheduling solution (I'm using GKE). In particular, I have a web app that, upon some user setting a checkbox on a dashboard, I want to trigger some service every X minutes. If the user clears the checkbox, the trigger will stop. I was hoping there are such ready-made services. What's the best approach here?
I want to trigger some service every X minutes. If the user clears the checkbox, the trigger will stop
The simplest way to do this would be to have your web app create a CronJob in kubernetes API when user enables this, and deletes that object when he disables it.
Though I'm not sure something like this would scale very well. Depends on your app. Going with Kubernetes Cronjobs, each job would create a pod, allocating resources, pull image, start container, run stuff, terminate. There's some overhead that could be avoided -- depending on what you're doing, this may or might not make sense. Another way to do this would be to implement some jobs queue in your application.
Eg: in NodeJS, I would use something like bee-queue, bull or kue. A single "worker" could then process jobs from multiple users, in parallel, and/or with some concurrency limit, ... A timer (eg: node-schedule) could trigger jobs. Web frontend deals with enabling or disabling timers one behalf of users, user selection may be kept in whatever SGBD/noSGBD you have available. Or even in a ConfigMap (data has sizes limitation!).
With a couple workers (running as Deployments or StatefulSet), some master/slave redis setup, I should be able to deal with lots of different jobs. Maybe add some HorizontalPodAutoscaler, allowing for adding/removing workers depending on CPU or memory usage of your workers.
While if I were to create kubernetes CronJobs for each user requesting something, that could make for a lot of Pods to schedule, potentially waisting resources or testing my cluster limits.
Triggering schedules is a typical use case of Google cloud functions, that is the serverless approach.
I think it's also cost effective, instead of GKE.
Look at these docs:
https://cloud.google.com/scheduler/docs/tut-pub-sub
You might use a cloud function to invoke a GKE CronJob, or a kubernetes replica set creation with replicas 1 using an image for the scheduled job. It might be a spring boot micro-service with the #Scheduled and actual schedule loaded from parameters. To disable the schedule you scale down the pod to 0 replicas.
Remember that in order to access the VPC of GKE nodes you need a VPC access because cloud functions are serverless.
Anyway you can understand that GKE is a cumbersome and costly approach.
I am trying to track and monitor, how much time does a pod take to come online/healthy/Running.
I am using EKS. And I have got HPA and cluster-autoscaler installed on my cluster.
Let's say I have a deployment with HorizontalPodAutoscaler scaling policy with 70% targetAverageUtilization.
So whenever the average utilization of deployment will go beyond 70%, HPA will trigger to create new POD. Now, based on different factors, like if nodes are available or not, and if not is already available, then the image needs to be downloaded or is it present on cache, the scaling can take from few seconds to few minutes to come up.
I want to track this time/duration, every time the POD is scheduled, how much time does it take to come to Running state. Any suggestions?
Or any direction where I should be looking at.
I found this Cluster Autoscaler Visibility Logs, but this is only available in GCE.
I am looking for any solution, can be out-of-the-box integration, or raising events and storing them in some time-series DB or scraping data from Prometheus. But I couldn't find any solution for this till now.
Thanks in advance.
There is nothing out of the box for this, you will need to build something yourself.
I have an app I'm building on Kubernetes which needs to dynamically add and remove worker pods (which can't be known at initial deployment time). These pods are not interchangeable (so increasing the replica count wouldn't make sense). My question is: what is the right way to do this?
One possible solution would be to call the Kubernetes API to dynamically start and stop these worker pods as needed. However, I've heard that this might be a bad way to go since, if those dynamically-created pods are not in a replica set or deployment, then if they die, nothing is around to restart them (I have not yet verified for certain if this is true or not).
Alternatively, I could use the Kubernetes API to dynamically spin up a higher-level abstraction (like a replica set or deployment). Is this a better solution? Or is there some other more preferable alternative?
If I understand you correctly you need ConfigMaps.
From the official documentation:
The ConfigMap API resource stores configuration data as key-value
pairs. The data can be consumed in pods or provide the configurations
for system components such as controllers. ConfigMap is similar to
Secrets, but provides a means of working with strings that don’t
contain sensitive information. Users and system components alike can
store configuration data in ConfigMap.
Here you can find some examples of how to setup it.
Please try it and let me know if that helped.
I have a application consisting of frontend, backend and a database.
At the moment the application is running on a kubernetes cluster.
Front-, backend and database is inside its own Pod communicating via services.
My consideration is to put all these application parts (Front-, Backend and DB) in one Pod, so i can make a Helm chart of it and for every new customer i only have to change the values.
The Question is, if this is a good solution or not to be recommended.
No, it is a bad idea, this is why:
First, the DB is a stateful container, when you update any of the components, you have to put down all containers in the POD, let's say this is a small front end update, it will put down everything and the application will be unavailable.
Let's say you have multiple replicas of this pod to avoid the issue mentioned above, this will make extremely hard to scale the application, because you will need a copy of every container scaled, when you might likely need only FE or BE to scale, also creating multiple replicas of a database, depending how it replicates the data, will make it slower. You also have to consider backup and restore of the data in case of failures.
In the same example above, multiple replicas will make the PODs consume too much resources, even though you don't need it.
If you just want to deploy the resources without much customization, you could just deploy them into separate namespaces and add policies to prevent one namespace talking to each other and deploy the raw yaml there, only taking care to use config maps to load the different configurations for each.
If you want just a simple templating and deployment solution, you can use kustomize.
If you want to have the complex setup and management provided by Helm, you could defined all pods in the chart, an example is the Prometheus chart.
You can create a helm chart consisting of multiple pods or deployments, so you do not need to put them in one pod just for that purpose. I would also not recommend that, as for example the Database would most likely fit better in a StatefulSet.
I have a few kubefiles defining Kubernetes services and deployments. When I create a cluster of 4 nodes on GCP (never changes), all the small kube-system pods are spread across the nodes instead of filling one at a time. Same with the pods created when I apply my kubefiles.
The problem is sometimes I have plenty of available total CPU for a deployment, but its pods can't be provisioned because no single node has that much free. It's fragmented, and it would obviously fit if the kube-system pods all went into one node instead of being spread out.
I can avoid problems by using bigger/fewer nodes, but I feel like I shouldn't have to do that. I'd also rather not deal with pod affinity settings for such a basic testing setup. Is there a solution to this, maybe a setting to have it prefer filling nodes in order? Like using an already opened carton of milk instead of opening a fresh one each time.
Haven't tested this, but the order I apply files in probably matters, meaning applying the biggest CPU users first could help. But that seems like a hack.
I know there's some discussion on rescheduling that gets complicated because they're dealing with a dynamic node pool, and it seems like they don't have it ready, so I'm guessing there's no way to have it rearrange my pods dynamically.
You can write your own scheduler. Almost all components in k8s are replaceable.
I know you won't. If you don't want to deal with affinity, you def won't write your own scheduler. But know that you have that option.
With GCP native, try to have all your pods with resource request and limits set up.