I would like to deploy an application using docker and would like to use a postgresql container to hold my data.
However I am worried about losing data, so I need back-ups.
I know I could run a cron job on the host to dump the data out from the container, however this approach is not containerized and when I deploy to a new location, I have to remember to add the cronjob.
What is a good , preferably containerized, approach to implement rotating data backups from a postgresql docker container?
Why not deploy a second container that is linked to the PostgreSQL one that does the backups?
It can contain a crontab within, together with instructions on how to upload the backup to Amazon S3, or some other secure storage in the cloud that will not fail even in case of an atomic war :)
Here's some basic information on linking containers: https://docs.docker.com/userguide/dockerlinks/
You can also use Docker Compose in order to deploy a fleet of containers (at least 2, in your case). If your "backup container" uploads stuff to the cloud, make sure you don't put your secrets (such as AWS keys) into the image at build time. Put them into the container at run-time. Here's more information on managing secrets using Docker.
Related
I have an application (JHipster Gateway, UAA, Registry, 5 microservices) and each application source builds a Docker image and pushes to GitLab registry. Currently I'm running everything on Rancher using a Docker-Compose file. My volumes for Mongo databases are currently in each container.
I need advice about volume mounts. Here are my options as I see them.
Leave data in containers and monitor and backup
Use external mounts and monitor volumes on host.
If I leave Mongo data in the containers, do I just set up to just cluster and when the internal volumes fill, the database just scales? I am looking for some explanation to help my choice with Mongo database mounts, internal or external (on host)?
Thanks in advance,
David L. Whitehurst
Never store any data you care about directly in containers. There are good arguments in favor of both named volumes (native to Docker, some support in a multi-host Swarm environment, fewer host-specific dependencies) and host bind mounts (much easier to back up and maintain, possible to examine directly if needed) but use some sort of mounted storage.
The most important note here is that it's fairly routine to delete and recreate containers. If the software you're running or its underlying library stack has a security issue, you generally need to get (or build) an updated image, delete your existing container, and rebuild it against the new image. If data is stored only inside a container, then during this very routine delete-and-recreate operation, there's significant risk of losing data.
In principle, if you're really careful, and you have a replicated data store, you can roll this over without external volumes and not lose data. It's tricky, and takes a lot of patience; you'll be forced to take down one replica, wait for its data to be rebalanced across the other replicas, start up a new replica, wait for it to accept some of the data, and so on. If you can take a point release by stopping a container, deleting it, starting a new one with the same data store, and have it come up instantly with populated data, that's much easier to manage.
(The other corollary here is that you don't "back up containers", since they don't have any data you care about. You do back up the data stored on the host or in Docker named volumes, and you can always recreate the container from its image plus the external data.)
I'm learning about Containers and Kubernetes and was evaluating if we can move our monolith, stateful appplication to kubernetes?
I was also looking at https://kubernetes.io/blog/2018/03/principles-of-container-app-design/ and "Self-Containment" looks close. We can consider using "storage".
Properties of my application:
1. Runs on a JVM
2. Does not have a database. Saves all its data/content to TAR files on the file-system
3. Should be able to backup and retain state if the container goes down.
In our current scenarios, we deploy the app to a VM and our IT teams generally take snapshots of these VM's as backups and restore them if the app fails or they have to restore to a point where the app was working good. I wanted to avoid this.
Please advice.
You call it as web application, but based on what it does it just a process which writes to file system.
If you move to k8s, write to NFS or persistent storage from pod. If you can only run one instance, then you can't use k8s horizontal scaling.
I have a web application hosted on a server, it uses virtualEnv to separate dev and prod instances. Both instances share the same postgres database. (all on the same server)
I am kind of new to docker and I would like to replace the dev and prod instances with docker containers, and each link to its dev or prod postgres containers (or a similar effect so that a code change in development will not affect production database.)
what is the best design for this scenario? should I have the dev and prod container mapped to different ports? Can I have 1 dockerfile for both dev and prod containers? How do I deal with 2 postgres container?
Seems your requirement is not very complicated, so I think you can run 2 pair containers (each pair have one application container and one postgres container) to achieve this, the basic structure described as below:
devContainer---> pgsDBContainer:<port_number1> ---> dataVolume1
prodContainer---> pgsDBContainer:<port_number2> ---> dataVolume2
Each container pair have one dedicated port number and one dedicated volume. The port numbers used for dev or prod application to connect to corresponding postgres database, which should be easy to understand. But volume is another story.
Please read this Manage data in containers doc for container volume. As you mentioned that "a code change in development will not affect production database", which means you should have two separate volumes for postgres containers, so the data of the databases will not mixed up.
Can I have 1 dockerfile for both dev and prod containers?
Yes you can, just as I mentioned, you should give each postgres container different port and volume config when you start them with docker run command. docker run has EXPOSE option and VOLUME option for you to config the port number and volume location.
Just a reminder, When you run a database in container, you may need to consider the Data Persistent in container environment to avoid data loss that caused by container removed. Some discussions of container Data Persistent can be found here and there.
We need to use Jenkins to test some web apps that each need:
a database (postgres in our case)
a search service (ElasticSearch in our case, but only sometimes)
a cache server, such as redis
So far, we've just had these services running on the Jenkins master, but this causes problems when we want to upgrade Postgres, ES or Redis versions. Not all apps can move in lock step, and we want to run the tests on new versions before committing to move an app in production.
What we'd like to do is have these services provided on a per-job-run basis, each one running in its own container.
What's the best way to orchestrate these containers?
How do you start up these ancillary containers and tear them down, regardless of whether to job succeeds or not?
how do you prevent port collisions between, say, the database in a run of a job for one web app and the database in the job for another web app?
Check docker-compose and write a docker-compose file for your tests.
The latest network features of Docker (private network) will help you to isolate builds running in parallel.
However, start learning docker-compose as if you only had one build at the same time. When confident with this, look further for advanced docker documentation around networking.
I'm using Amazon Web Services to create an autoscaling group of application instances behind an Elastic Load Balancer. I'm using a CloudFormation template to create the autoscaling group + load balancer and have been using Ansible to configure other instances.
I'm having trouble wrapping my head around how to design things such that when new autoscaling instances come up, they can automatically be provisioned by Ansible (that is, without me needing to find out the new instance's hostname and run Ansible for it). I've looked into Ansible's ansible-pull feature but I'm not quite sure I understand how to use it. It requires a central git repository which it pulls from, but how do you deal with sensitive information which you wouldn't want to commit?
Also, the current way I'm using Ansible with AWS is to create the stack using a CloudFormation template, then I get the hostnames as output from the stack, and then generate a hosts file for Ansible to use. This doesn't feel quite right – is there "best practice" for this?
Yes, another way is just to simply run your playbooks locally once the instance starts. For example you can create an EC2 AMI for your deployment that in the rc.local file (Linux) calls ansible-playbook -i <inventory-only-with-localhost-file> <your-playbook>.yml. rc.local is almost the last script run at startup.
You could just store that sensitive information in your EC2 AMI, but this is a very wide topic and really depends on what kind of sensitive information it is. (You can also use private git repositories to store sensitive data).
If for example your playbooks get updated regularly you can create a cron entry in your AMI that runs every so often and that actually runs your playbook to make sure your instance configuration is always up to date. Thus avoiding having "push" from a remote workstation.
This is just one approach there could be many others and it depends on what kind of service you are running, what kind data you are using, etc.
I don't think you should use Ansible to configure new auto-scaled instances. Instead use Ansible to configure a new image, of which you will create an AMI (Amazon Machine Image), and order AWS autoscaling to launch from that instead.
On top of this, you should also use Ansible to easily update your existing running instances whenever you change your playbook.
Alternatives
There are a few ways to do this. First, I wanted to cover some alternative ways.
One option is to use Ansible Tower. This creates a dependency though: your Ansible Tower server needs to be up and running at the time autoscaling or similar happens.
The other option is to use something like packer.io and build fully-functioning server AMIs. You can install all your code into these using Ansible. This doesn't have any non-AWS dependencies, and has the advantage that it means servers start up fast. Generally speaking building AMIs is the recommended approach for autoscaling.
Ansible Config in S3 Buckets
The alternative route is a bit more complex, but has worked well for us when running a large site (millions of users). It's "serverless" and only depends on AWS services. It also supports multiple Availability Zones well, and doesn't depend on running any central server.
I've put together a GitHub repo that contains a fully-working example with Cloudformation. I also put together a presentation for the London Ansible meetup.
Overall, it works as follows:
Create S3 buckets for storing the pieces that you're going to need to bootstrap your servers.
Save your Ansible playbook and roles etc in one of those S3 buckets.
Have your Autoscaling process run a small shell script. This script fetches things from your S3 buckets and uses it to "bootstrap" Ansible.
Ansible then does everything else.
All secret values such as Database passwords are stored in CloudFormation Parameter values. The 'bootstrap' shell script copies these into an Ansible fact file.
So that you're not dependent on external services being up you also need to save any build dependencies (eg: any .deb files, package install files or similar) in an S3 bucket. You want this because you don't want to require ansible.com or similar to be up and running for your Autoscale bootstrap script to be able to run. Generally speaking I've tried to only depend on Amazon services like S3.
In our case, we then also use AWS CodeDeploy to actually install the Rails application itself.
The key bits of the config relating to the above are:
S3 Bucket Creation
Script that copies things to S3
Script to copy Bootstrap Ansible. This is the core of the process. This also writes the Ansible fact files based on the CloudFormation parameters.
Use the Facts in the template.