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
I am building a CI/CD pipeline to release SF Stateless Application packages into clusters using parameters for everything. This is to ensure environments (DEV/UAT/PROD) can be scoped with different settings.
For example in a DEV cluster an application package may have an instance count of 3 (in a 10 node cluster)
I have noticed that if an application is in the cluster and running with an instance count (for example) of 3, and I change the deployment parameter to anything else (e.g. 5), the application package will upload and register the type, but will fail on attempting to do a rolling upgrade of the running application.
This also works the other way e.g. if the running app is -1 and you want to reduce the count on next rolling deployment.
Have I missed a setting or config somewhere, is this how it is supposed to be? At present its not lending itself to being something that is easily scaled without downtime.
At its simplest form we just want to be able to change instance counts on application updates, as we have an infrastructure-as-code approach to changes, builds and deployments for full tracking ability.
Thanks in advance
This is a common error when using Default services.
This has been already answered multiple times in these places:
Default service descriptions can not be modified as part of upgrade set EnableDefaultServicesUpgrade to true
https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/maheshk/2017/05/24/azure-service-fabric-error-to-allow-it-set-enabledefaultservicesupgrade-to-true/
https://github.com/Microsoft/service-fabric/issues/253#issuecomment-442074878
I want to create a preemptible node-pool in GKE where each instance runs a shutdown script when it is shutdown. In order to do this I need to add metadata to each of the instances.
How can I configure that?
When creating your node pool, you may click on “advanced edit”, and add the shutdown script in Metadata. The section to edit Metadata is found just above the Save and Cancel buttons.
I currently do have a problem with the statefulset under the following condition:
I have a percona SQL cluster running with persistent storage and 2 nodes
now i do force both pods to fail.
first i will force pod-0 to fail
Afterwards i will force pod-1 to fail
Now the cluster is not able to recover without manual interference and possible dataloss
Why:
The statefulset is trying to bring pod-0 up first, however this one will not be brought online because of the following message:
[ERROR] WSREP: It may not be safe to bootstrap the cluster from this node. It was not the last one to leave the cluster and may not contain all the updates. To force cluster bootstrap with this node, edit the grastate.dat file manually and set safe_to_bootstrap to 1
What i could do alternatively, but what i dont really like:
I could change ".spec.podManagementPolicy" to "Parallel" but this could lead to race conditions when forming the cluster. Thus i would like to avoid that, i basically like the idea of starting the nodes one after another
What i would like to have:
the possibility to have ".spec.podManagementPolicy":"OrderedReady" activated but with the possibility to adjust the order somehow
to be able to put specific pods into "inactive" mode so they are being ignored until i enable them again
Is something like that available? Does someone have any other ideas?
Unfortunately, nothing like that is available in standard functions of Kubernetes.
I see only 2 options here:
Use InitContainers to somehow check the current state on relaunch.
That will allow you to run any code before the primary container is started so you can try to use a custom script in order to resolve the problem etc.
Modify the database startup script to allow it to wait for some Environment Variable or any flag file and use PostStart hook to check the state before running a database.
But in both options, you have to write your own logic of startup order.
I have a cluster over jboss6 AS in domain mode. I have an application deployed in it. My application need to have a listener(callback) when a new node become member of the cluster and also when gets removed. Is there a way to get the member node list and to add such a listener?
The simplest way is to get define a clustered cache in the configuration and get access to it from your code (see example). With the cache available, you can call cache.getCacheManager().addListener(Object) that can listen for org.infinispan.notifications.cachemanagerlistener.annotation.ViewChanged. See listener documentation for more info.