What is the standard/convention for Nomad orchestration in the context of environments/deploy-stage, do people generally have a Nomad cluster per environment, or do all environments share a cluster? Other than the cost implications, what are the pros and cons to both methods?
I think you will find in most of these situation there is no convention, it really depends on the outcome you are trying to get to.
The benefits of having a larger cluster running multiple environments is that you can get more out of less - i.e run less hardware as you can share it across multiple services in the same cluster.
The benefits of having seperate clusters for seperate environments is that you have a smaller blast zone/radius, your production environment is not sitting along side your development so when someone accidentally breaks something in development environment it doesn't effect your production environment. As well as this it gives you an upgrade path i.e you can try upgrade your Nomad cluster in development first rather then doing it on the production cluster.
I think it makes sense to take a balanced approach:
1 Cluster for Testing Environments - Even if you have multiple
1 Cluster for Integration Environments - Even if you have multiple
1 Cluster for Production Environments - Even if you have multiple
This is a really good read on a high profile application crashing due to the single cluster approach: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/10/31/kubernetes_bug_bank_app_monzo/
Related
Based on the parameters
Cost
Hardware Requirements (RAM,Nodes etc)
Also elaborate availability requirements for production and development environments.
It depends upon your development / production setup environment. For both development and production- its better to go with Cloud setup.
Because - assuming you need to serve reasonable load in production, you would need less or more instances ( cloud instance such as redis on docker ) so that you can get the benefit of cloud auto-scaling.
For pre-prod and prod - you would need more load - may be two (min - for disaster recovery or blue green deployment) to more instances. For dev just one instance should be sufficient.
By default, there is three environment variables that can be run with ruby roxy configuration of a MarkLogic (the roxy script is here: https://github.com/marklogic/roxy). The three variables are: local, dev and prod. Although, others environment variables can be added.
What would be the best setup for local, dev and prod servers? The prod server is on an ec2 AWS.
I think, locally, there should only be 1 or 2 forests, and on a server maybe 1 or 2 forests for 4 cores. The forests can function in parallel. I think in the dev environment, tests should be run. Also, interested to know how much space the MarkLogic DB caches when run, both locally and on a ec2 instance.
I believe, by default the prod environment variable does run test (although that might be wrong).
Some information:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCspJ-BP4T0
https://d0.awsstatic.com/whitepapers/marklogic-on-aws.pdf
https://github.com/marklogic/roxy/blob/master/deploy/default.properties
https://github.com/marklogic/roxy/wiki/Environment-properties
As mentioned by Dave, best setup depends on many factors, but I'd add that nr forests primarily depends on the amount of data you'd like to load, and also on the response times, and loading speeds you seek. With the same amount of data, more forests will allow more parallelization of querying and ingestion. Once you reach limits in cpu, mem or disk speed, you scale out horizontally to allow for additional forests.
Regarding, local versus dev and prod, that really depends on how much data you like to load on each, and the limits of the system itself. I typically start off with 3 forests per host (kind of a default with Roxy), even for local.
And yes, like Dave said too, I'd encourage reading Inside MarkLogic Server. It goes pretty deep, and has recently been updated to include latest features.
HTH!
Is there any documentation on Consul's requirements as it pertains to infrastructure footprint ? (e.g. memory / disk / cpu requirement and typical usage of Consul agents and master themselves). How does this compare with other similar service discovery solutions ?
I know of no official documentation on this. It will depend in part on the number of total nodes you are running (i.e. server agents plus client agents on each machine running services.
This thread includes comments (and a good link to a presentation by Darron at DataDog) from production users. They indicate using AWS m3.medium to m3.large instances in their production situations (you can find specs on those instance types here). Darron's presentation includes some information on # of nodes in their scenario as well as comments on how they scaled as the number of nodes grew.
I'm trying to figure out what would be the reasons for using Mesos. Can you come up with other ones?
Running all of your services in the same cluster instead of dedicated clusters (your end-applications + DevOps such as Jenkins)
Running different maturity applications in same cluster (dev, test, production), or is this viable? Kubernetes has a similar approach with Labels
Mesos simplifies the use of traditional distributed applications such as Hadoop by easing deployment, unified API, bin-packing of resources
Full-disclosure: I currently work at Twitter and I'm involved in both Apache Mesos and Aurora.
Mesos uses cases can vary based upon a few dimensions: scale (10 servers vs 10s of thousands), available hardware (dedicated/static or in the public cloud/scalable), and workloads (primarily services, batch, or both).
Your list is a great start. Here are a few additional use cases / features to add.
Container Orchestration
As container runtimes like Docker have become popular, lots of potential users are looking at Mesos + a scheduler to manage orchestration once container images are created. Mesos is already quite mature and has been proven at scale, which I think has given it a leg up over some emergent solutions.
Increased Resource Utilization
For companies running >50 servers, a common motivation for adopting Mesos is to increase resource utilization to reduce CapEx. There are a number of examples of this in both the public and private cloud. In the case of Ebay they have been running Jenkins on Mesos and were able to reduce their VM footprint. Mesosphere has also published a case study of HubSpot (runnning on AWS), and how they've been able to replace hundreds of smaller servers with dozens of larger ones by more-efficiently using their available hardware.
Preemption
At Twitter we're running Mesos via one scheduler: Apache Aurora. One of the ways we can improve utilization relates to your use case: running different maturity applications in the same cluster. Aurora has a concept of environments, so you can run applications that are production, development, or test. Additionally, Aurora has a built-in preemption feature which allows it to prioritize production over non-production tasks, killing non-production tasks when those resources are needed to run production ones as well as a priority system within each environment.
Long-term, functionality related to preemption will also be located in the Mesos core itself -- it's a killer feature related to both increased resource utilization and running different maturity applications (dev, test, prod). There are a few Mesos tickets to follow if you're interested in keeping up to date, including MESOS-155 for preemption, and MESOS-1474 for inverse offers.
Colocating Batch and Services
Running batch and services in a shared Mesos cluster will be key to driving up utilization even further as js84 points out. Check out Project Myriad, an effort to colocate Mesos and YARN workloads in the same cluster. At this time I'm not aware of any large deployments running both batch and services, but it's certainly the direction the community is moving in as it becomes easier for multiple frameworks to run in a shared cluster.
At least one additional use case comes to mind: Development SDK for developing distributed applications. If you have a look at Mesos Frameworks you will find a number of frameworks which have been developed on top of Mesos. Also interesting Apple's Siri framework powering Siri.
Regarding your 1): One additional angle you should keep in mind here is scaling your applications in the same cluster. I.e. at peak load of your website, shift resources easily towards the webservers while scaling down the Hadoop analytical processing.
I am relatively new to all these, but I'm having troubles getting a clear picture among the listed technologies.
Though, all of these try to solve different problems, but do have things in common too. I would like to understand what are the things that are common and what is different. It is likely that the combination of few would be great fit, if so what are they?
I am listing a few of them along with questions, but it would be great if someone lists all of them in detail and answers the questions.
Kubernetes vs Mesos:
This link
What's the difference between Apache's Mesos and Google's Kubernetes
provides a good insight into the differences, but I'm unable to understand as to why Kubernetes should run on top of Mesos. Is it more to do with coming together of two opensource solutions?
Kubernetes vs Core-OS Fleet:
If I use kubernetes, is fleet required?
How does Docker-Swarm fit into all the above?
Disclosure: I'm a lead engineer on Kubernetes
I think that Mesos and Kubernetes are largely aimed at solving similar problems of running clustered applications, they have different histories and different approaches to solving the problem.
Mesos focuses its energy on very generic scheduling, and plugging in multiple different schedulers. This means that it enables systems like Hadoop and Marathon to co-exist in the same scheduling environment. Mesos is less focused on running containers. Mesos existed prior to widespread interest in containers and has been re-factored in parts to support containers.
In contrast, Kubernetes was designed from the ground up to be an environment for building distributed applications from containers. It includes primitives for replication and service discovery as core primitives, where-as such things are added via frameworks in Mesos. The primary goal of Kubernetes is a system for building, running and managing distributed systems.
Fleet is a lower-level task distributor. It is useful for bootstrapping a cluster system, for example CoreOS uses it to distribute the kubernetes agents and binaries out to the machines in a cluster in order to turn-up a kubernetes cluster. It is not really intended to solve the same distributed application development problems, think of it more like systemd/init.d/upstart for your cluster. It's not required if you run kubernetes, you can use other tools (e.g. Salt, Puppet, Ansible, Chef, ...) to accomplish the same binary distribution.
Swarm is an effort by Docker to extend the existing Docker API to make a cluster of machines look like a single Docker API. Fundamentally, our experience at Google and elsewhere indicates that the node API is insufficient for a cluster API. You can see a bunch of discussion on this here: https://github.com/docker/docker/pull/8859 and here: https://github.com/docker/docker/issues/8781
Join us on IRC # #google-containers if you want to talk more.
I think the simplest answer is that there is no simple answer. The swift rise to power of containers, and Docker in particular has left a power vacuum for "container scheduling and orchestration", whatever that might mean. In reality, that means you have a number of technologies that can work in harmony on some levels, but with certain aspects in competition. For example, Kubernetes can be used as a one stop shop for deploying and managing containers on a compute cluster (as Google originally designed it), but could also sit atop Fleet, making use of the resilience tier that Fleet provides on CoreOS.
As this Google vid states Kubernetes is not a complete out the box container scaling solution, but is a good statement to start from. In the same way, you would at some stage expect Apache Mesos to be able to work with Kubernetes, but not with Marathon, in as much as Marathon appears to fulfil the same role as Kubernetes. Somewhere I think I've read these could become part of the same effort, but I could be wrong about that - it's really about the strategic direction of Mesosphere and the corresponding adoption of Kubernetes principles.
In the DockerCon keynote, Solomon Hykes suggested Swarm would be a tier that could provide a common interface onto the many orchestration and scheduling frameworks. From what I can see, Swarm is designed to provide a smooth Docker deployment workflow, working with some existing container workflow frameworks such as Deis, but flexible enough to yield to "heavyweight" deployment and resource management such as Mesos.
Hope this helps - this could be an enormous post. I think the key is that these are young, evolving services that will likely merge and become interoperable, but we need to ride out the next 12 months to see how it plays out. There's some very clever people on the problem, so the future looks very bright.
As far as I understand it:
Mesos, Kubernetes and Fleet are all trying to solve a very similar problem. The idea is that you abstract away all your hardware from developers and the 'cluster management tool' sorts it all out for you. Then all you need to do is give a container to the cluster, give it some info (keep it running permanently, scale up if X happens etc) and the cluster manager will make it happen.
With Mesos, it does all the cluster management for you, but it doesn't include the scheduler. The scheduler is the bit that says, ok this process needs 2 procs and 512MB RAM, and I have a machine over there with that free, so I'll run it on that machine. There are some plugin schedulers available for Mesos: Marathon and Chronos and you can write your own. This gives you a lot of power of resource distribution and cluster scaling etc.
Fleet and Kubernetes seem to abstract away those sorts of details (so you don't have to write your own scheduler basically). This means you have to define your tasks and submit them in the format/manner defined by Fleet or Kubernetes and then they take over and schedule the tasks (containers) for you.
So I guess: Using Mesos may mean a bit more work in writing your own scheduler, but potentially provides more flexibility if required.
I think the idea of running Kubernetes on top of Mesos is that Kubernetes acts as the scheduler for Mesos. Personally I'm not sure what benefits this brings over running one or the other on its own though (hopefully someone will jump in and explain!)
As MikeB said.. it's early days, and it's all up for grabs (keep an eye on Amazon's ECS as well) so there are many competing standards and a lot of overlap!
-edit- I didn't mention Docker swarm as I don't really have much experience with it.
For anyone coming to this after 2017 fleet is deprecated. Do not use it anymore.
Fleet docs say "fleet is no longer actively developed or maintained by CoreOS" and link to Container orchestration: Moving from fleet to Kubernetes. Fleet was removed from Container Linux (formerly known as CoreOS Linux) and replaced with Kubernetes kubelet (agent). This coincided with a corporate pivot to offer Tectonic (a Kubernetes distro) as their primary product.