I'm trying to figure out ways to automate k8s deployments in an EKS cluster. I'm trying to set up namespaces for each specific environment. One for dev, one for staging, and one for production. My production namespace is in a separate region and also in a separate cluster (dev & staging are in one cluster). I'm a little new to this concept, but does it make sense to have each respective application load balancer in it's respective namespace? Is that practice common or best practice? Any ideas on automating deployments would be appreciated.
Hi Dave Michaels,
I assume there are two questions in your post above:
If we use a dedicated namespace in the same cluster (dev & staging setup), can we use a dedicated load balancer for each of these namespaces? Is this good practice.
Answer: Yes. As you are using the namespace concept for each environment in the same cluster, it is Ok to create a dedicated load balancer (promise me you will use ingress :)) in each of these namespaces as we need an easier way to access those environments. To be frank, I am not a fan of using namespaces for environments, because as your cluster grows and lots of microservices getting added to it, you might want to use namespace for another reason eg., namespace per team or domain to have granular access rights. But I have seen teams using it for different environments successfully as well.
Suggest automated Kubernetes deployments possibilities?
This is a large topic by itself.
As your microservices grow, you will have multiple Kubernetes manifests to handle, first thing I will suggest is to either use a configuration manager like Kustomize or a package manager like Helm to segregate variables from actual manifests, this will help to easily automate deployment across environments (same cluster or different clusters). Coming to actual deployment automation, if there is no existing CD in place I would suggest exploring tools that support natively Kubernetes that supports GitOps, like FluxCD or ArgoCD etc
I am planning on deploying my services on digitalocean's managed Kubernetes Service and I'm trying to determine which is the best approach when working with testing and production environments.
These are the approaches I'm considering:
Have one performant cluster on which I create 2 namespaces prod and test to run the 2 environments on the same cluster.
Have one cluster entirely dedicated to my production environment and another cluster with lower specs that's dedicated to testing.
Is one of these approaches preferred/recommended or is it very subjectve?
Feel free to suggest a completely different approach if the one's I have suggested aren't good!
Thank you for your time,
Eliot
always prefer to go with two isolate cluster would be good option. but it will cost you.
if you want use one cluster for both environment. you could isolate physical resource but not traffic(Istio would help).
you could isolate by using hardcode resource quota to test env. to avoid consume Prod. resource and always use limit to all deployment and use nodeaffinity to limit your test env.
Resource quota - Namespace
Request limit - Deployment
Nodeaffinity - Node
We're migrating our app's deployments from using VMs to Kubernetes and as my knowledge of Kubernetes is very limited, I'm lost how I could set up deployment for multiple clients.
Right now we have a separate VM for each client but how to separate the clients in Kubernetes in a way that will be cost and resource efficient and easy to manage?
I managed to create dev and staging environments using namespaces and this is working great.
To update dev and staging deployment I just use kubectl apply -f <file> --namespace staging.
Now I need to deploy app to production for several clients (50+). They should be completely separate from each other (using separate environment variables and secrets) while code should be the same. And I don't know what is the best way to achieve that.
Could you please hint me what is the right way for that in Kubernetes?
You can use Kustomize. It provides purely declarative approach to configuration customization to manage an arbitrary number of distinctly customized Kubernetes configurations.
https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/kustomize/tree/master/examples
one (or a set of namespaces) by customer
kustomize has a very good patterns system to handle generic configuration and several adaptation by clients
use NetworkPolicy to isolate network between clients
I have 2 namespaces in my kubernetes cluster: development and production. I'm currently adding a third namespace: staging.
I'm NOT using terraform with which this task would have been supposedly simpler.
I'm looking for solutions within the GCP ecosystem to provision a workload in the staging namespace with all the environment variables and configurations of the development namespace.
Please check my answer to similar question here. Unfortunately there is no ready solution for that within GCP, especially if you want to migrate workload from the existing cluster between different namespaces. However you can use for that purpose Heptio Velero. It's nicely described in this article.
What is considered a good practice with K8S for managing multiple environments (QA, Staging, Production, Dev, etc)?
As an example, say that a team is working on a product which requires deploying a few APIs, along with a front-end application. Usually, this will require at least 2 environments:
Staging: For iterations/testing and validation before releasing to the client
Production: This the environment the client has access to. Should contain stable and well-tested features.
So, assuming the team is using Kubernetes, what would be a good practice to host these environments? This far we've considered two options:
Use a K8s cluster for each environment
Use only one K8s cluster and keep them in different namespaces.
(1) Seems the safest options since it minimizes the risks of potential human mistake and machine failures, that could put the production environment in danger. However, this comes with the cost of more master machines and also the cost of more infrastructure management.
(2) Looks like it simplifies infrastructure and deployment management because there is one single cluster but it raises a few questions like:
How does one make sure that a human mistake might impact the production environment?
How does one make sure that a high load in the staging environment won't cause a loss of performance in the production environment?
There might be some other concerns, so I'm reaching out to the K8s community on StackOverflow to have a better understanding of how people are dealing with these sort of challenges.
Multiple Clusters Considerations
Take a look at this blog post from Vadim Eisenberg (IBM / Istio): Checklist: pros and cons of using multiple Kubernetes clusters, and how to distribute workloads between them.
I'd like to highlight some of the pros/cons:
Reasons to have multiple clusters
Separation of production/development/test: especially for testing a new version of Kubernetes, of a service mesh, of other cluster software
Compliance: according to some regulations some applications must run in separate clusters/separate VPNs
Better isolation for security
Cloud/on-prem: to split the load between on-premise services
Reasons to have a single cluster
Reduce setup, maintenance and administration overhead
Improve utilization
Cost reduction
Considering a not too expensive environment, with average maintenance, and yet still ensuring security isolation for production applications, I would recommend:
1 cluster for DEV and STAGING (separated by namespaces, maybe even isolated, using Network Policies, like in Calico)
1 cluster for PROD
Environment Parity
It's a good practice to keep development, staging, and production as similar as possible:
Differences between backing services mean that tiny incompatibilities
crop up, causing code that worked and passed tests in development or
staging to fail in production. These types of errors create friction
that disincentivizes continuous deployment.
Combine a powerful CI/CD tool with helm. You can use the flexibility of helm values to set default configurations, just overriding the configs that differ from an environment to another.
GitLab CI/CD with AutoDevops has a powerful integration with Kubernetes, which allows you to manage multiple Kubernetes clusters already with helm support.
Managing multiple clusters (kubectl interactions)
When you are working with multiple Kubernetes clusters, it’s easy to
mess up with contexts and run kubectl in the wrong cluster. Beyond
that, Kubernetes has restrictions for versioning mismatch between the
client (kubectl) and server (kubernetes master), so running commands
in the right context does not mean running the right client version.
To overcome this:
Use asdf to manage multiple kubectl versions
Set the KUBECONFIG env var to change between multiple kubeconfig files
Use kube-ps1 to keep track of your current context/namespace
Use kubectx and kubens to change fast between clusters/namespaces
Use aliases to combine them all together
I have an article that exemplifies how to accomplish this: Using different kubectl versions with multiple Kubernetes clusters
I also recommend the following reads:
Mastering the KUBECONFIG file by Ahmet Alp Balkan (Google Engineer)
How Zalando Manages 140+ Kubernetes Clusters by Henning Jacobs (Zalando Tech)
Definitely use a separate cluster for development and creating docker images so that your staging/production clusters can be locked down security wise. Whether you use separate clusters for staging + production is up to you to decide based on risk/cost - certainly keeping them separate will help avoid staging affecting production.
I'd also highly recommend using GitOps to promote versions of your apps between your environments.
To minimise human error I also recommend you look into automating as much as you can for your CI/CD and promotion.
Here's a demo of how to automate CI/CD with multiple environments on Kubernetes using GitOps for promotion between environments and Preview Environments on Pull Requests which was done live on GKE though Jenkins X supports most kubernetes clusters
It depends on what you want to test in each of the scenarios. In general I would try to avoid running test scenarios on the production cluster to avoid unnecessary side effects (performance impact, etc.).
If your intention is testing with a staging system that exactly mimics the production system I would recommend firing up an exact replica of the complete cluster and shut it down after you're done testing and move the deployments to production.
If your purpose is testing a staging system that allows testing the application to deploy I would run a smaller staging cluster permanently and update the deployments (with also a scaled down version of the deployments) as required for continuous testing.
To control the different clusters I prefer having a separate ci/cd machine that is not part of the cluster but used for firing up and shutting down clusters as well as performing deployment work, initiating tests, etc. This allows to set up and shut down clusters as part of automated testing scenarios.
It's clear that by keeping the production cluster appart from the staging one, the risk of potential errors impacting the production services is reduced. However this comes at a cost of more infrastructure/configuration management, since it requires at least:
at least 3 masters for the production cluster and at least one master for the staging one
2 Kubectl config files to be added to the CI/CD system
Let’s also not forget that there could be more than one environment. For example I've worked at companies where there are at least 3 environments:
QA: This where we did daily deploys and where we did our internal QA before releasing to the client)
Client QA: This where we deployed before deploying to production so that the client could validate the environment before releasing to production)
Production: This where production services are deployed.
I think ephemeral/on-demand clusters makes sense but only for certain use cases (load/performance testing or very « big » integration/end-to-end testing) but for more persistent/sticky environments I see an overhead that might be reduced by running them within a single cluster.
I guess I wanted to reach out to the k8s community to see what patterns are used for such scenarios like the ones I've described.
Unless compliance or other requirements dictate otherwise, I favor a single cluster for all environments. With this approach, attention points are:
Make sure you also group nodes per environment using labels. You can then use the nodeSelector on resources to ensure that they are running on specific nodes. This will reduce the chances of (excess) resource consumption spilling over between environments.
Treat your namespaces as subnets and forbid all egress/ingress traffic by default. See https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/services-networking/network-policies/.
Have a strategy for managing service accounts. ClusterRoleBindings imply something different if a clusters hosts more than one environment.
Use scrutiny when using tools like Helm. Some charts blatantly install service accounts with cluster-wide permissions, but permissions to service accounts should be limited to the environment they are in.
I think there is a middle point. I am working with eks and node groups. The master is managed, scaled and maintained by aws. You could then create 3 kinds of node groups (just an example):
1 - General Purpose -> labels: environment=general-purpose
2 - Staging -> labels: environment=staging (taints if necessary)
3 - Prod -> labels: environment=production (taints if necessary)
You can use tolerations and node selectors on the pods so they are placed where they are supposed to be.
This allows you to use more robust or powerful nodes for production's nodegroups, and, for example, SPOT instances for staging, uat, qa, etc... and has a couple of big upsides:
Environments are physically separated (and virtually too, in namespaces)
You can reduce costs by sharing not only the masters, but also some nodes with pods shared by the two environments and by using spot or cheaper instances in staging/uat/...
No cluster-management overheads
You have to pay attention to roles and policies to keep it secure. You can implement network policies using, for example eks+calico.
Update:
I found a doc that may be useful when using EKS. It has some details on how to safely run multi-tenant cluster, and some of this details may be useful to isolate production pods and namespaces from the ones in staging.
https://aws.github.io/aws-eks-best-practices/security/docs/multitenancy/
Using multiple clusters is the norm, at the very least to enforce a strong separation between production and "non-production".
In that spirit, do note that GitLab 13.2 (July 2020) now includes:
Multiple Kubernetes cluster deployment in Core
Using GitLab to deploy multiple Kubernetes clusters with GitLab previously required a Premium license.
Our community spoke, and we listened: deploying to multiple clusters is useful even for individual contributors.
Based on your feedback, starting in GitLab 13.2, you can deploy to multiple group and project clusters in Core.
See documentation and issue.
A few thoughts here:
Do not trust namespaces to protect the cluster from catastrophe. Having separate production and non-prod (dev,stage,test,etc) clusters is the minimum necessary requirement. Noisy neighbors have been known to bring down entire clusters.
Separate repositories for code and k8s deployments (Helm, Kustomize, etc.) will make best practices like trunk-based development and feature-flagging easier as the teams scale.
Using Environments as a Service (EaaS) will allow each PR to be tested in its own short-lived (ephemeral) environment. Each environment is a high-fidelity copy of production (including custom infrasture like database, buckets, dns, etc.), so devs can remotely code against a trustworthy environment (NOT minikube). This can help reduce configuration drift, improve release cycles, and improve the overall dev experience. (disclaimer: I work for an EaaS company).
I think running a single cluster make sense because it reduces overhead, monitoring. But, you have to make sure to place network policies, access control in place.
Network policy - to prohibit dev/qa environment workload to interact with prod/staging stores.
Access control - who have access on different environment resources using ClusterRoles, Roles etc..