I have set up an experimental local Kubernetes cluster with one master and three slave nodes. I have created a deployment for a custom service that listens on port 10001. The goal is to access an exemplary endpoint /hello with a stable IP/hostname, e.g. http://<master>:10001/hello.
After deploying the deployment, the pods are created fine and are accessible through their cluster IPs.
I understand the solution for cloud providers is to create a load balancer service for the deployment, so that you can just expose a service. However, this is apparently not supported for a local cluster. Setting up Ingress seems overkill for this purpose. Is it not?
It seems more like kube proxy is the way to go. However, when I run kube proxy --port <port> on the master node, I can access http://<master>:<port>/api/..., but not the actual pod.
There are many related questions (e.g. How to access services through kubernetes cluster ip?), but no (accepted) answers. The Kubernetes documentation on the topic is rather sparse as well, so I am not even sure about what is the right approach conceptually.
I am hence looking for a straight-forward solution and/or a good tutorial. It seems to be a very typical use case that lacks a clear path though.
If an Ingress Controller is overkill for your scenario, you may want to try using a service of type NodePort. You can specify the port, or let the system auto-assign one for you.
A NodePort service exposes your service at the same port on all Nodes in your cluster. If you have network access to your Nodes, you can access your service at the node IP and port specified in the configuration.
Obviously, this does not load balance between nodes. You can add an external service to help you do this if you want to emulate what a real load balancer would do. One simple option is to run something like rocky-cli.
An Ingress is probably your simplest bet.
You can schedule the creation of an Nginx IngressController quite simply; here's a guide for that. Note that this setup uses a DaemonSet, so there is an IngressController on each node. It also uses the hostPort config option, so the IngressController will listen on the node's IP, instead of a virtual service IP that will not be stable.
Now you just need to get your HTTP traffic to any one of your nodes. You'll probably want to define an external DNS entry for each Service, each pointing to the IPs of your nodes (i.e. multiple A/AAAA records). The ingress will disambiguate and route inside the cluster based on the HTTP hostname, using name-based virtual hosting.
If you need to expose non-HTTP services, this gets a bit more involved, but you can look in the nginx ingress docs for more examples (e.g. UDP).
Related
From my local machine I would like to be able to port forward to many services in a cluster.
For example I have services of name serviceA-type1, serviceA-type2, serviceA-type3... etc. None of these services are accessible externally but can be accessed using the kubectl port-forward command. However there are so many services, that port forwarding to each is unfeasible.
Is it possible to create some kind of proxy service in kubernetes that would allow me to connect to any of the serviceA-typeN services by specifying the them in a URL? I would like to be able to port-forward to the proxy service from my local machine and it would then forward the requests to the serviceA-typeN services.
So for example, if I have set up a port forward on 8080 to this proxy, then the URL to access the serviceA-type1 service might look like:
http://localhost:8080/serviceA-type1/path/to/endpoint?a=1
I could maybe create a small application that would do this but does kubernetes provide this functionality already?
kubectl proxy command provides this functionality.
Read more here: https://kubernetes.io/docs/tasks/administer-cluster/access-cluster-services/#manually-constructing-apiserver-proxy-urls
Good option is to use Ingrees to achieve it.
Read more about what Ingress is.
Main concepts are:
Ingress exposes HTTP and HTTPS routes from outside the cluster to services within the cluster. Traffic routing is controlled by rules defined on the Ingress resource.
An Ingress may be configured to give Services externally-reachable URLs, load balance traffic, terminate SSL / TLS, and offer name-based virtual hosting.
An Ingress controller is responsible for fulfilling the Ingress, usually with a load balancer, though it may also configure your edge router or additional frontends to help handle the traffic.
An Ingress does not expose arbitrary ports or protocols. Exposing services other than HTTP and HTTPS to the internet typically uses a service of type Service.Type=NodePort or Service.Type=LoadBalancer.
In Kubernetes we have 4 types of Services and the default service type is Cluster IP which means the service is only reachable within the cluster.Ingress exposes your service outside the cluster so ingress acts as the entry point into your cluster.
If you plan to move to cloud (I assume you will, because all applications are going to work in cloud in future) with Ingress, it will be compatible with cloud services and eventually will save time and will be easier to migrate from local environment.
To start with ingress you need to install an Ingress controller first.
There are different ingress controllers which you can use.
You can start with most common ingress-nginx which is supported by kubernetes community.
If you're using a minikube than it can be enabled as an addon - see here
Once you have installed ingress in your cluster, you need to create a rule to have it work. Simple fanout is an example with two services and path based routing to it.
I've been looking into Kubernetes networking, more specifically, how to serve HTTPS users the most efficient.
I was watching this talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Omvgd7Hg1I and from 22:18 he explains what the problem is with a load balancer that is not pod aware. Now, how they solve this in kubernetes is by letting the nodes also act as a 'router' and letting the node pass the request on to another node. (explained at 22:46). This does not seem very efficient, but when looking around SoundCloud (https://developers.soundcloud.com/blog/how-soundcloud-uses-haproxy-with-kubernetes-for-user-facing-traffic) actually seems to do something similar to this but with NodePorts. They say that the overhead costs less than creating a better load balancer.
From what I have read an option might be using an ingress controller. Making sure that there is not more than one ingress controller per node, and routing the traffic to the specific nodes that have an ingress controller. That way there will not be any traffic re-routing needed. However, this does add another layer of routing.
This information is all from 2017, so my question is: is there any pod aware load balancer out there, or is there some other method that does not involve sending the http request and response over the network twice?
Thank you in advance,
Hendrik
EDIT:
A bit more information about my use case:
There is a bare-metal setup with kubernetes. The firewall load balances the incomming data between two HAProxy instances. These HAProxy instances do ssl termination and forward the traffic to a few sites. This includes an exchange setup, a few internal IIS sites and a nginx server for a static web app. The idea is to transform the app servers into kubernetes.
Now my main problem is how to get the requests from HAProxy into kubernetes. I see a few options:
Use the SoundCloud setup. The infrastructure could stay almost the same, the HAProxy server can still operate the way they do now.
I could use an ingress controller on EACH node in the kubernetes cluster and have the firewall load balance between the nodes. I believe it is possible to forward traffic from the ingress controller to server outside the cluster, e.g. exchange.
Some magic load balancer that I do not know about that is pod aware and able to operate outside of the kubernetes cluster.
Option 1 and 2 are relatively simple and quite close in how they work, but they do come with a performance penalty. This is the case when the node that the requests gets forwarded to by the firewall does not have the required pod running, or if another pod is doing less work. The request will get forwarded to another node, thus, using the network twice.
Is this just the price you pay when using Kubernetes, or is there something that I am missing?
How traffic heads to pods depend on whether a managed cluster is used.
Almost all cloud providers can forward traffic in a cloud-native way in their managed K8s clusters. First, you can a managed cluster with some special network settings (e.g. vpc-native cluster of GKE). Then, the only thing you need to do is to create a LoadBalancer typed Service to expose your workload. You can also create Ingresses for your L7 workloads, they are going to be handled by provided IngressControllers (e.g. ALB of AWS).
In an on-premise cluster without any cloud provider(OpenStack or vSphere), the only way to expose workloads is NodePort typed Service. It doesn't mean you can't improve it.
If your cluster is behind reverse proxies (the SoundCloud case), setting externalTrafficPolicy: Local to Services could break traffic forwarding among work nodes. When traffic received through NodePorts, they are forwarded to local Pods or dropped if Pods reside on other nodes. Reserve proxy will mark these NodePort as unhealthy in the backend health check and reject to forward traffic to them. Another choice is to use topology-aware service routing. In this case, local Pods have priorities and traffic is still forwarded between node when no local Pods matched.
For IngressController in on-prem clusters, it is a little different. You may have some work nodes that have EIP or public IP. To expose HTTP(S) services, an IngressController usually deployed on those work nodes through DaemeaSet and HostNetwork such that clients access the IngressController via the well-known ports and EIP of nodes. These work nodes regularly don't accept other workloads (e.g. infra node in OpenShift) and one more forward on the Pod network is needed. You can also deploy the IngressController on all work nodes as well as other workloads, so traffic could be forwarded to a closer Pod if the IngressController supports topology-aware service routing although it can now.
Hope it helps!
I'm trying to understand the concepts of ingress and ingress controllers in kubernetes. But I'm not so sure what the end product should look like. Here is what I don't fully understand:
Given I'm having a running Kubernetes cluster somewhere with a master node which runes the control plane and the etcd database. Besides that I'm having like 3 worker nodes - each of the worker nodes has a public IPv4 address with a corresponding DNS A record (worker{1,2,3}.domain.tld) and I've full control over my DNS server. I want that my users access my web application via www.domain.tld. So I point the the www CNAME to one of the worker nodes (I saw that my ingress controller i.e. got scheduled to worker1 one so I point it to worker1.domain.tld).
Now when I schedule a workload consisting of 2 frontend pods and 1 database pod with 1 service for the frontend and 1 service for the database. From what've understand right now, I need an ingress controller pointing to the frontend service to achieve some kind of load balancing. Two questions here:
Isn't running the ingress controller only on one worker node pointless to internally load balance two the two frontend pods via its service? Is it best practice to run an ingress controller on every worker node in the cluster?
For whatever reason the worker which runs the ingress controller dies and it gets rescheduled to another worker. So the ingress point will get be at another IPv4 address, right? From a user perspective which tries to access the frontend via www.domain.tld, this DNS entry has to be updated, right? How so? Do I need to run a specific kubernetes-aware DNS server somewhere? I don't understand the connection between the DNS server and the kubernetes cluster.
Bonus question: If I run more ingress controllers replicas (spread across multiple workers) do I do a DNS-round robin based approach here with multiple IPv4 addresses bound to one DNS entry? Or what's the best solution to achieve HA. I rather not want to use load balancing IP addresses where the worker share the same IP address.
Given I'm having a running Kubernetes cluster somewhere with a master
node which runes the control plane and the etcd database. Besides that
I'm having like 3 worker nodes - each of the worker nodes has a public
IPv4 address with a corresponding DNS A record
(worker{1,2,3}.domain.tld) and I've full control over my DNS server. I
want that my users access my web application via www.domain.tld. So I
point the the www CNAME to one of the worker nodes (I saw that my
ingress controller i.e. got scheduled to worker1 one so I point it to
worker1.domain.tld).
Now when I schedule a workload consisting of 2 frontend pods and 1
database pod with 1 service for the frontend and 1 service for the
database. From what've understand right now, I need an ingress
controller pointing to the frontend service to achieve some kind of
load balancing. Two questions here:
Isn't running the ingress controller only on one worker node pointless to internally load balance two the two frontend pods via its
service? Is it best practice to run an ingress controller on every
worker node in the cluster?
Yes, it's a good practice. Having multiple pods for the load balancer is important to ensure high availability. For example, if you run the ingress-nginx controller, you should probably deploy it to multiple nodes.
For whatever reason the worker which runs the ingress controller dies and it gets rescheduled to another worker. So the ingress point
will get be at another IPv4 address, right? From a user perspective
which tries to access the frontend via www.domain.tld, this DNS entry
has to be updated, right? How so? Do I need to run a specific
kubernetes-aware DNS server somewhere? I don't understand the
connection between the DNS server and the kubernetes cluster.
Yes, the IP will change. And yes, this needs to be updated in your DNS server.
There are a few ways to handle this:
assume clients will deal with outages. you can list all load balancer nodes in round-robin and assume clients will fallback. this works with some protocols, but mostly implies timeouts and problems and should generally not be used, especially since you still need to update the records by hand when k8s figures it will create/remove LB entries
configure an external DNS server automatically. this can be done with the external-dns project which can sync against most of the popular DNS servers, including standard RFC2136 dynamic updates but also cloud providers like Amazon, Google, Azure, etc.
Bonus question: If I run more ingress controllers replicas (spread
across multiple workers) do I do a DNS-round robin based approach here
with multiple IPv4 addresses bound to one DNS entry? Or what's the
best solution to achieve HA. I rather not want to use load balancing
IP addresses where the worker share the same IP address.
Yes, you should basically do DNS round-robin. I would assume external-dns would do the right thing here as well.
Another alternative is to do some sort of ECMP. This can be accomplished by having both load balancers "announce" the same IP space. That is an advanced configuration, however, which may not be necessary. There are interesting tradeoffs between BGP/ECMP and DNS updates, see this dropbox engineering post for a deeper discussion about those.
Finally, note that CoreDNS is looking at implementing public DNS records which could resolve this natively in Kubernetes, without external resources.
Isn't running the ingress controller only on one worker node pointless to internally load balance two the two frontend pods via its service? Is it best practice to run an ingress controller on every worker node in the cluster?
A quantity of replicas of the ingress will not affect the quality of load balancing. But for HA you can run more than 1 replica of the controller.
For whatever reason the worker which runs the ingress controller dies and it gets rescheduled to another worker. So the ingress point will get be at another IPv4 address, right? From a user perspective which tries to access the frontend via www.domain.tld, this DNS entry has to be updated, right? How so? Do I need to run a specific kubernetes-aware DNS server somewhere? I don't understand the connection between the DNS server and the kubernetes cluster.
Right, it will be on another IPv4. Yes, DNS should be updated for that. There are no standard tools for that included in Kubernetes. Yes, you need to run external DNS and somehow manage records on it manually (by some tools or scripts).
DNS server inside a Kubernetes cluster and your external DNS server are totally different things. DNS server inside the cluster provides resolving only inside the cluster for service discovery. Kubernetes does not know anything about access from external networks to the cluster, at least on bare-metal. In a cloud, it can manage some staff like load-balancers to automate external access management.
I run more ingress controllers replicas (spread across multiple workers) do I do a DNS-round robin based approach here with multiple IPv4 addresses bound to one DNS entry? Or what's the best solution to achieve HA.
DNS round-robin works in that case, but if one of the nodes is down, your clients will get a problem with connecting to that node, so you need to find some way to move/remove IP of that node.
The solutions for HA provided by #jjo is not the worst way to achieve what you want if you can prepare an environment for that. If not, you should choose something else, but the best practice is using a Load Balancer provided by an infrastructure. Will it be based on several dedicated servers, or load balancing IPs, or something else - it does not matter.
The behavior you describe is actually a LoadBalancer (a Service with type=LoadBalancer in Kubernetes), which is "naturally" provided when you're running Kubernetes on top of a cloud provider.
From your description, it looks like your cluster is on bare-metal (either true or virtual metal), a possible approach (that has worked for me) will be:
Deploy https://github.com/google/metallb
this is where your external IP will "live" (HA'd), via the speaker-xxx pods deployed as DaemonSet to each worker node
depending on your extn L2/L3 setup, you'll need to choose between L3 (BGP) or L2 (ARP) modes
fyi I've successfully used L2 mode + simple proxyarp at the border router
Deploy nginx-ingress controller, with its Service as type=LoadBalancer
this will make metallb to "land" (actually: L3 or L2 "advertise" ...) the assigned IP to the nodes
fyi I successfully tested it together with kube-router using --advertise-loadbalancer-ip as CNI, the effect will be that e.g. <LB_IP>:80 will be redirected to the ingress-nginx Service NodePort
Point your DNS to ingress-nginx LB IP, i.e. what's shown by:
kubectl get svc --namespace=ingress-nginx ingress-nginx -ojsonpath='{.status.loadBalancer.ingress[].ip}{"\n"}'
fyi you can also quickly test it using fake DNSing with http://A.B.C.D.xip.io/ (A.B.C.D being your public IP addr)
Here is a Kubernetes DNS add-ons Configure external DNS servers (AWS Route53, Google CloudDNS and others) for Kubernetes Ingresses and Services allowing to handle DNS record updates for ingress LoadBalancers. It allows to keep DNS record up to date according to Ingress controller config.
Made my way into kubernetes through GKE, currently trying out via kubeadm on bare metal.
In the later environment, there is no need of any specific load balancer; using nginx-ingress and ingresses let one serve service to the www.
Oppositely, on gke, using the same nginx-ingress, or using the gke provided l7, you always end up with a billed load balancer.
What's the reason about that, as it seemed not to be ultimately needed ?
(Reposting my comment above)
In general, when one is receiving traffic from the outside world, that traffic is being sent to one or more non-ACLd public IP addresses.
If you run k8s on bare metals, those BMs can have public IPs, and you can just run ingress on one or more of them.
A managed k8s environment, however, for security reasons, will not permit nodes to have public IPs.
Instead, managed load balancers are allowed to have public IPs. Those are configured to know the private node IPs hosting ingress for your cluster and will direct traffic accordingly.
Kubernetes services have few types, each building up on previous one : ClusterIP, NodePort and LoadBalancer. Only the last one will provision LoadBalancer in a cloud environment, so you can avoid it on GKE without fuzz. The question is, what then? Because, in best case you end up with an Ingress (I assume we expose ingress as in your question), that is available on volatile IPs (nodes can be rolled at any time and new ones will get new IPs) and high ports given by NodePort service. Meaning that not only you have no fixed IP to use, but also you would need to open something like http://:31978, which obviously is crap. Hence, in cloud, you have a simple solution of putting a cloud load balancer in front of it with LoadBalancer service type. This LB will ingest the traffic on port 80/443 and forward it to correct backing service/pods.
We wanted podnames to be resolved to IP's to configure the seed nodes in an akka cluster. This was happenning by using the concept of a headless service and stateful sets in Kubernetes. But, how do I expose a headless service externally to hit an endpoint from outside?
It is hard to expose a Kubernetes service to the outside, since this would require some complex TCP proxies. The reason for this is, that the headless services is only a DNS record with an IP for each pod. But these IPs are only reachable from within the cluster.
One solution is to expose this via Node ports, which means the ports are opened on the host itself. Unfortunately this makes the service discovery harder, because you don't know which host has a scheduled pod on it.
You can setup node ports via:
the services: https://kubernetes.io/docs/user-guide/services/#type-nodeport
or directly in the Pod by defining spec.containers[].ports[].hostPort
Another alternative is to use a LoadBalancer, if your cloud provider supports that. Unfortunately you cannot address each instance itself, since they share the same IP. This might not be suitable for your application.