7:21 a.m.
Hello,
today, I was on L&L about storage in OpenShift and I learn interesting
thing. I always thought, that everything needs to be immutable and
stateless and all the state needs to be handled by means of NFS persistent
volumes. Luckily, there is a feature in Kubernetess (since 1.3) that allows
the PODs to be treated as pets. It's called PetSet [1] and it assigns a
unique ID (and persistent DNS record) to a POD that runs in this "mode".
Common use-case for PetSet is a set of pods with a relational DBs that uses
some kind of master-slave replication and slaves needs to know the master's
address. But it can be used for anything. We can use the hostname as the
feed id for instance.
I don't know how much this will be popular because it kind of defeats the
purpose of immutable infrastructure but it can save us some work with the
feed identity. And of course we need to support also the "normal" POD
scenario.
[1]: http://kubernetes.io/docs/user-guide/petset/
jk
8:49 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jiri Kremser" <jkremser(a)redhat.com>
To: "Discussions around Hawkular development"
<hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>
Sent: Thursday, 13 October, 2016 8:21:10 AM
Subject: [Hawkular-dev] OpenShift Pet vs Cattle metaphor
Hello,
today, I was on L&L about storage in OpenShift and I learn interesting thing.
I always thought, that everything needs to be immutable and stateless and
all the state needs to be handled by means of NFS persistent volumes.
Luckily, there is a feature in Kubernetess (since 1.3) that allows the PODs
to be treated as pets. It's called PetSet [1] and it assigns a unique ID
(and persistent DNS record) to a POD that runs in this "mode".
For OpenShift, we would have moved to using PetSets for our Cassandra pod, but its not a
fully supported feature yet. In the next version we will be moving over to using it.
It will make changing the cluster size for Cassandra nodes a lot easier once we can use
this.
Common use-case for PetSet is a set of pods with a relational DBs that uses
some kind of master-slave replication and slaves needs to know the master's
address. But it can be used for anything. We can use the hostname as the
feed id for instance.
I don't know how much this will be popular because it kind of defeats the
purpose of immutable infrastructure but it can save us some work with the
feed identity. And of course we need to support also the "normal" POD
scenario.
PetSets are meant for clustering of pods which have persistent storage. If this is not
your use case, what exactly are you trying to do? There may be better ways to handle it.
[1]: http://kubernetes.io/docs/user-guide/petset/
jk
_______________________________________________
hawkular-dev mailing list
hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
10:49 a.m.
Hi Matt,
thanks for response.
PetSets are meant for clustering of pods which have persistent storage. If
this is not your use case, what exactly are you trying to do? There may be
better ways to handle it.
I am trying to figure out how to monitor wildfly in the openshift. If I am
not mistaken all the metric ids contain the feed id, feed id (at least for
wildfly is autogenerated if it's not provided in the xml config). If
container/pod is killed and re-created its history is lost with the feed
id. That's why I thought the Pet Sets with persistent ids can help.
jk
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Matt Wringe <mwringe(a)redhat.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jiri Kremser" <jkremser(a)redhat.com>
> To: "Discussions around Hawkular development" <
hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>
> Sent: Thursday, 13 October, 2016 8:21:10 AM
> Subject: [Hawkular-dev] OpenShift Pet vs Cattle metaphor
>
> Hello,
> today, I was on L&L about storage in OpenShift and I learn interesting
thing.
> I always thought, that everything needs to be immutable and stateless and
> all the state needs to be handled by means of NFS persistent volumes.
> Luckily, there is a feature in Kubernetess (since 1.3) that allows the
PODs
> to be treated as pets. It's called PetSet [1] and it assigns a unique ID
> (and persistent DNS record) to a POD that runs in this "mode".
For OpenShift, we would have moved to using PetSets for our Cassandra pod,
but its not a fully supported feature yet. In the next version we will be
moving over to using it.
It will make changing the cluster size for Cassandra nodes a lot easier
once we can use this.
>
> Common use-case for PetSet is a set of pods with a relational DBs that
uses
> some kind of master-slave replication and slaves needs to know the
master's
> address. But it can be used for anything. We can use the hostname as the
> feed id for instance.
>
> I don't know how much this will be popular because it kind of defeats the
> purpose of immutable infrastructure but it can save us some work with the
> feed identity. And of course we need to support also the "normal" POD
> scenario.
PetSets are meant for clustering of pods which have persistent storage. If
this is not your use case, what exactly are you trying to do? There may be
better ways to handle it.
>
> [1]: http://kubernetes.io/docs/user-guide/petset/
>
> jk
>
> _______________________________________________
> hawkular-dev mailing list
> hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
>
_______________________________________________
hawkular-dev mailing list
hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
3 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jiri Kremser" <jkremser(a)redhat.com>
To: "Discussions around Hawkular development"
<hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>
Sent: Wednesday, 19 October, 2016 11:49:26 AM
Subject: Re: [Hawkular-dev] OpenShift Pet vs Cattle metaphor
Hi Matt,
thanks for response.
PetSets are meant for clustering of pods which have persistent storage. If
this is not your use case, what exactly are you trying to do? There may be
better ways to handle it.
I am trying to figure out how to monitor wildfly in the openshift. If I am
not mistaken all the metric ids contain the feed id, feed id (at least for
wildfly is autogenerated if it's not provided in the xml config). If
container/pod is killed and re-created its history is lost with the feed id.
That's why I thought the Pet Sets with persistent ids can help.
I don't know if this sounds like the right approach.
The pods you are monitoring are still "cattle". They may be started, stopped,
removed, increase in the number of instances running, decreased in the number of instances
running or some other change may occur.
I might have a replica set of 3 pods right now, 10 minutes from now due to increased load
my replica set may autoscale to 5 pods, and 2 hours from now it may decrease down to 2
pods.
If you want to track metrics from individual pods, then you should be setting the feed id
to something unique like the namespace plus the pod name. The feed will change when the
pod is recreated, but that is what you want, its no longer the same thing being
monitored.
If you want to keep track of something like a particular replica set, then you need to use
inventory or tags and query based on that.
jk
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Matt Wringe < mwringe(a)redhat.com > wrote:
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jiri Kremser" < jkremser(a)redhat.com >
> To: "Discussions around Hawkular development" <
> hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >
> Sent: Thursday, 13 October, 2016 8:21:10 AM
> Subject: [Hawkular-dev] OpenShift Pet vs Cattle metaphor
>
> Hello,
> today, I was on L&L about storage in OpenShift and I learn interesting
> thing.
> I always thought, that everything needs to be immutable and stateless and
> all the state needs to be handled by means of NFS persistent volumes.
> Luckily, there is a feature in Kubernetess (since 1.3) that allows the PODs
> to be treated as pets. It's called PetSet [1] and it assigns a unique ID
> (and persistent DNS record) to a POD that runs in this "mode".
For OpenShift, we would have moved to using PetSets for our Cassandra pod,
but its not a fully supported feature yet. In the next version we will be
moving over to using it.
It will make changing the cluster size for Cassandra nodes a lot easier once
we can use this.
>
> Common use-case for PetSet is a set of pods with a relational DBs that uses
> some kind of master-slave replication and slaves needs to know the master's
> address. But it can be used for anything. We can use the hostname as the
> feed id for instance.
>
> I don't know how much this will be popular because it kind of defeats the
> purpose of immutable infrastructure but it can save us some work with the
> feed identity. And of course we need to support also the "normal" POD
> scenario.
PetSets are meant for clustering of pods which have persistent storage. If
this is not your use case, what exactly are you trying to do? There may be
better ways to handle it.
>
> [1]: http://kubernetes.io/docs/user-guide/petset/
>
> jk
>
> _______________________________________________
> hawkular-dev mailing list
> hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
>
_______________________________________________
hawkular-dev mailing list
hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
_______________________________________________
hawkular-dev mailing list
hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
5:28 a.m.
I have hardly any hands-on experience with Openshift or Kubernetes, but I was
under the impression the pods can be configured using environment variables.
If that is true, couldn't the agent just read its feed id from a well-known
env var? Or if that is not possible then surely we can have some wrapper
script that would take the env var and pass it on to the agent as a -D system
property (which I believe the agent accepts already).
On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 4:00:21 PM CEST Matt Wringe wrote:
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jiri Kremser" <jkremser(a)redhat.com>
> To: "Discussions around Hawkular development"
> <hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org> Sent: Wednesday, 19 October, 2016 11:49:26
> AM
> Subject: Re: [Hawkular-dev] OpenShift Pet vs Cattle metaphor
>
> Hi Matt,
> thanks for response.
>
> PetSets are meant for clustering of pods which have persistent storage. If
> this is not your use case, what exactly are you trying to do? There may be
> better ways to handle it.
>
> I am trying to figure out how to monitor wildfly in the openshift. If I am
> not mistaken all the metric ids contain the feed id, feed id (at least for
> wildfly is autogenerated if it's not provided in the xml config). If
> container/pod is killed and re-created its history is lost with the feed
> id. That's why I thought the Pet Sets with persistent ids can help.
I don't know if this sounds like the right approach.
The pods you are monitoring are still "cattle". They may be started,
stopped, removed, increase in the number of instances running, decreased in
the number of instances running or some other change may occur.
I might have a replica set of 3 pods right now, 10 minutes from now due to
increased load my replica set may autoscale to 5 pods, and 2 hours from now
it may decrease down to 2 pods.
If you want to track metrics from individual pods, then you should be
setting the feed id to something unique like the namespace plus the pod
name. The feed will change when the pod is recreated, but that is what you
want, its no longer the same thing being monitored.
If you want to keep track of something like a particular replica set, then
you need to use inventory or tags and query based on that.
> jk
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Matt Wringe < mwringe(a)redhat.com > wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> > From: "Jiri Kremser" < jkremser(a)redhat.com >
> > To: "Discussions around Hawkular development" <
> > hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >
> > Sent: Thursday, 13 October, 2016 8:21:10 AM
> > Subject: [Hawkular-dev] OpenShift Pet vs Cattle metaphor
> >
> > Hello,
> > today, I was on L&L about storage in OpenShift and I learn interesting
> > thing.
> > I always thought, that everything needs to be immutable and stateless
> > and
> > all the state needs to be handled by means of NFS persistent volumes.
> > Luckily, there is a feature in Kubernetess (since 1.3) that allows the
> > PODs
> > to be treated as pets. It's called PetSet [1] and it assigns a unique ID
> > (and persistent DNS record) to a POD that runs in this "mode".
>
> For OpenShift, we would have moved to using PetSets for our Cassandra pod,
> but its not a fully supported feature yet. In the next version we will be
> moving over to using it.
>
> It will make changing the cluster size for Cassandra nodes a lot easier
> once we can use this.
>
> > Common use-case for PetSet is a set of pods with a relational DBs that
> > uses
> > some kind of master-slave replication and slaves needs to know the
> > master's
> > address. But it can be used for anything. We can use the hostname as the
> > feed id for instance.
> >
> > I don't know how much this will be popular because it kind of defeats
> > the
> > purpose of immutable infrastructure but it can save us some work with
> > the
> > feed identity. And of course we need to support also the "normal"
POD
> > scenario.
>
> PetSets are meant for clustering of pods which have persistent storage. If
> this is not your use case, what exactly are you trying to do? There may be
> better ways to handle it.
>
> > [1]: http://kubernetes.io/docs/user-guide/petset/
> >
> > jk
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > hawkular-dev mailing list
> > hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> hawkular-dev mailing list
> hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> hawkular-dev mailing list
> hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
_______________________________________________
hawkular-dev mailing list
hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
--
Lukas Krejci
7:41 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lukas Krejci" <lkrejci(a)redhat.com>
To: hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
Sent: Thursday, 20 October, 2016 6:28:09 AM
Subject: Re: [Hawkular-dev] OpenShift Pet vs Cattle metaphor
I have hardly any hands-on experience with Openshift or Kubernetes, but I was
under the impression the pods can be configured using environment variables.
If you are dealing with a specific single pod that you are monitoring, then yes, you could
manually set a unique feed id via something like a environment variable, or just give the
pod a specified name.
Since we can't use petsets for our Cassandra instances yet, we do something similar.
Each Cassandra instance in a cluster has its own unique id which has a corresponding
persistent volume (eg hawkular-cassandra-node-1, hawkular-cassandra-node-2, etc). But this
is not a great solution since we have to manually increase or decrease the cluster size
with templates instead of using the tools which are meant to do this (eg
replicasets/petsets). Using the proper tools will make things much easier for admins and
will be much less prone to errors.
The problem is that for the most part you are probably not going to be dealing with single
pods. Users are going to be running groups of pods in a replicaset, and the number of pods
running there is dynamic. It can increase or decrease, can be all stopped and restarted
again, etc.
Even if say you know you only want to be running one pod for your application, you may
want to do something like bring up a new version of our application in one pod and have it
running a bit before shutting down your old pod. This overall would cause some strange
values in your collected metrics if you had the same feed id for both.
You may want to rethink how to handle this. I would expect each pod to have its own feed
and metrics being gathered since they are separate, individual things. I would then expect
the console figure out how to manage and group this information in a manner that makes
sense.
This is how we handle it in OpenShift. Each pod has its own metrics being gathered for it,
and we have the metadata for the pods stored as tags. From this I can see the graphs for
the currently running pods, as well as get a graph of the overall usage across a replica
set (currently running and previously running pods).
If that is true, couldn't the agent just read its feed id from a well-known
env var? Or if that is not possible then surely we can have some wrapper
script that would take the env var and pass it on to the agent as a -D system
property (which I believe the agent accepts already).
On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 4:00:21 PM CEST Matt Wringe wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> > From: "Jiri Kremser" <jkremser(a)redhat.com>
> > To: "Discussions around Hawkular development"
> > <hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org> Sent: Wednesday, 19 October, 2016
11:49:26
> > AM
> > Subject: Re: [Hawkular-dev] OpenShift Pet vs Cattle metaphor
> >
> > Hi Matt,
> > thanks for response.
> >
> > PetSets are meant for clustering of pods which have persistent storage.
> > If
> > this is not your use case, what exactly are you trying to do? There may
> > be
> > better ways to handle it.
> >
> > I am trying to figure out how to monitor wildfly in the openshift. If I
> > am
> > not mistaken all the metric ids contain the feed id, feed id (at least
> > for
> > wildfly is autogenerated if it's not provided in the xml config). If
> > container/pod is killed and re-created its history is lost with the feed
> > id. That's why I thought the Pet Sets with persistent ids can help.
>
> I don't know if this sounds like the right approach.
>
> The pods you are monitoring are still "cattle". They may be started,
> stopped, removed, increase in the number of instances running, decreased in
> the number of instances running or some other change may occur.
>
> I might have a replica set of 3 pods right now, 10 minutes from now due to
> increased load my replica set may autoscale to 5 pods, and 2 hours from now
> it may decrease down to 2 pods.
>
> If you want to track metrics from individual pods, then you should be
> setting the feed id to something unique like the namespace plus the pod
> name. The feed will change when the pod is recreated, but that is what you
> want, its no longer the same thing being monitored.
>
> If you want to keep track of something like a particular replica set, then
> you need to use inventory or tags and query based on that.
> > jk
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Matt Wringe < mwringe(a)redhat.com >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > > From: "Jiri Kremser" < jkremser(a)redhat.com >
> > > To: "Discussions around Hawkular development" <
> > > hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >
> > > Sent: Thursday, 13 October, 2016 8:21:10 AM
> > > Subject: [Hawkular-dev] OpenShift Pet vs Cattle metaphor
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > > today, I was on L&L about storage in OpenShift and I learn
interesting
> > > thing.
> > > I always thought, that everything needs to be immutable and stateless
> > > and
> > > all the state needs to be handled by means of NFS persistent volumes.
> > > Luckily, there is a feature in Kubernetess (since 1.3) that allows the
> > > PODs
> > > to be treated as pets. It's called PetSet [1] and it assigns a unique
> > > ID
> > > (and persistent DNS record) to a POD that runs in this "mode".
> >
> > For OpenShift, we would have moved to using PetSets for our Cassandra
> > pod,
> > but its not a fully supported feature yet. In the next version we will be
> > moving over to using it.
> >
> > It will make changing the cluster size for Cassandra nodes a lot easier
> > once we can use this.
> >
> > > Common use-case for PetSet is a set of pods with a relational DBs that
> > > uses
> > > some kind of master-slave replication and slaves needs to know the
> > > master's
> > > address. But it can be used for anything. We can use the hostname as
> > > the
> > > feed id for instance.
> > >
> > > I don't know how much this will be popular because it kind of defeats
> > > the
> > > purpose of immutable infrastructure but it can save us some work with
> > > the
> > > feed identity. And of course we need to support also the
"normal" POD
> > > scenario.
> >
> > PetSets are meant for clustering of pods which have persistent storage.
> > If
> > this is not your use case, what exactly are you trying to do? There may
> > be
> > better ways to handle it.
> >
> > > [1]: http://kubernetes.io/docs/user-guide/petset/
> > >
> > > jk
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > hawkular-dev mailing list
> > > hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > hawkular-dev mailing list
> > hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > hawkular-dev mailing list
> > hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> hawkular-dev mailing list
> hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
--
Lukas Krejci
_______________________________________________
hawkular-dev mailing list
hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
2989
days inactive
2996
days old
5 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Jiri Kremser -
Lukas Krejci -
Matt Wringe