Docker SDN (Software Defined Network) already exists for quite some time. What is new, starting from the release 1.11, is the addition of DNS round-robin load balancing. That is both a reason for celebration and an opportunity to explore Docker networking and DNS. We’ll explore internal and external networking, see how DNS fits into the picture, discuss use cases that might be a good fit, and finish with pros and cons. Continue reading →
The goal of the project is to add features and processes that are currently missing inside the Docker ecosystem. The project, at the moment, solves the problems of blue-green deployments, relative scaling, and proxy service discovery and reconfiguration. Many additional features will be added soon.
The goal of the Docker Flow: Proxy project is to provide a simple way to reconfigure proxy every time a new service is deployed or when a service is scaled. It does not try to “reinvent the wheel”, but to leverage the existing leaders and combine them through an easy to use integration. It uses HAProxy as a proxy and Consul as service registry. On top of those two, it adds custom logic that allows on-demand reconfiguration of the proxy. Continue reading →
I have so much chaos in my life, it’s become normal. You become used to it. You have just to relax, calm down, take a deep breath and try to see how you can make things work rather than complain about how they’re wrong.
— Tom Welling
Monitoring many services on a single server poses some difficulties. Monitoring many services on many servers requires a whole new way of thinking and a new set of tools. As you start embracing microservices, containers, and clusters, the number of deployed containers will begin increasing rapidly. The same holds true for servers that form the cluster. We cannot, anymore, log into a node and look at logs. There are too many logs to look at. On top of that, they are distributed among many servers. While yesterday we had two instances of a service deployed on a single server, tomorrow we might have eight instances deployed to six servers. The same holds true for monitoring. Old tools, like Nagios, are not designed to handle constant changes in running servers and services. We already used Consul that provides a different, not to say new, approach to managing near real-time monitoring and reaction when thresholds are reached. However, that is not enough. Real-time information is valuable to detect that something is wrong, but it does not give us information why the failure happened. We can know that a service is not responding, but we cannot know why. Continue reading →
Traditionally, we deploy a new release by replacing the current one. The old release is stopped, and the new one is brought up in its place. The problem with this approach is the downtime occurring from the moment the old release is stopped until the new one is fully operational. No matter how quickly you try to do this process, there will be some downtime. That might be only a millisecond, or it can last for minutes or, in extreme situations, even hours. Having monolithic applications introduces additional problems like, for example, the need to wait a considerable amount of time until the application is initialized. People tried to solve this issue in various ways, and most of them used some variation of the blue-green deployment process. The idea behind it is simple. At any time, one of the releases should be running meaning that, during the deployment process, we must deploy a new release in parallel with the old one. The new and the old releases are called blue and green. Continue reading →
Let’s face it. The systems we are creating are not perfect. Sooner or later, one of our applications will fail, one of our services will not be able to handle the increased load, one of our commits will introduce a fatal bug, a piece of hardware will break, or something entirely unexpected will happen.
How do we fight the unexpected? Most of us are trying to develop a bullet proof system. We are attempting to create what no one did before. We strive for the ultimate perfection, hoping that the result will be a system that does not have any bugs, is running on hardware that never fails, and can handle any load. Here’s a tip. There is no such thing as perfection. No one is perfect, and nothing is without fault. That does not mean that we should not strive for perfection. We should, when time and resources are provided. However, we should also embrace the inevitable, and design our systems not to be perfect, but able to recuperate from failures, and able to predict likely future. We should hope for the best but prepare for the worst. Continue reading →