Hey Scott,
Thanks for following up and showing me your code. I have some questions inline for you:
From: "Scott Rossillo" <srossillo@smartling.com>
To: "Alan Field" <afield@redhat.com>
Cc: "Niko Köbler" <niko@n-k.de>, "keycloak-user" <keycloak-user@lists.jboss.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 2:19:27 PM
Subject: Re: [keycloak-user] Replace use of Infinispan with User Sessions SPI ?Hi Alan,Thanks for the informative email. The steps you outlined are similar to what I’ve tested with ECS. The gossip router is definitely a no-go for production since it’s a single point of failure.
It is possible to use the TUNNEL with multiple gossip routers to avoid this, but I understand not wanting to have to setup and maintain the extra gossip router processes.
I am testing this down at the JGroups level right now and got it working with ECS. There were two issues. On TCP you have to specify the external_addr to match the EC2 host otherwise the nodes won’t form a cluster. Secondly, FD_SOCK attempts to connect back on a random port. With Docker instances, this fails. Using a known client_bind_port works well.
Which IP address from your example is retrieved with this command:
EXTERNAL_HOST_IP=$(curl http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/local-ipv4)" Is it the 172.16.0.4 address or the 10.10.0.100 address? When I use this command in EC2, I get the internal IP address for the instance, but not the public IP address. In your example, that would be the 172.16.0.4 address. Also which address is used for the bind_addr when you use -Djgroups.bind_addr=global? |
Here’s the code I’m testing with: https://github.com/foo4u/aws-infinispan-pocMost interesting are probably:
How are you setting the JGROUPS_INITIAL_HOSTS environment variable?
With this set up the nodes on different machines communicate without issue. I still have to add in something other than TCP_PING, but that wasn’t the main issue. Will use JDBC_PING most likely. Not a fan of S3 for coordination. Plus I already need an RDBMS for Keycloak.
For my curiosity, can you tell me more about why you don't want to use S3_PING? Is it the cost or something else? Just wondering and JDBC_PING should work fine.
Thanks,
Alan
On Dec 15, 2015, at 2:13 PM, Alan Field <afield@redhat.com> wrote:_______________________________________________Just to be clear, I have successfully tested Infinispan library and server mode clusters on EC2 using S3_PING, TCP, and the internal EC2 IP addresses. None of the cloud providers support multicast. The Docker case is a little different though, because of the issues with getting access to the IP address.Thanks,
AlanFrom: "Niko Köbler" <niko@n-k.de>
To: "Paul Blair" <pblair@clearme.com>
Cc: "keycloak-user" <keycloak-user@lists.jboss.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 1:53:18 PM
Subject: Re: [keycloak-user] Replace use of Infinispan with User Sessions SPI ?We will go for the first run with EC2 and S3_PING, but w/o Docker.If we/you/whoever will find a proper solution (possibly on the jgroups mailinglist), we will test this.Seams that everybody is aware of the Docker/Cloud/Multicast issues, but no-one has a proper solution, only workarounds. :(Am 15.12.2015 um 15:47 schrieb Paul Blair <pblair@clearme.com>:_______________________________________________I've also been working on setting up clustered Keycloak on Docker containers in EC2 and would be interested in any potential solutions for this configuration.Alternatively I've set up on EC2 without Docker with S3_PING. I'd be interested in hearing about the issues with this configuration.From: Scott Rossillo <srossillo@smartling.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 18:31:30 -0500
To: Marek Posolda <mposolda@redhat.com>, <afield@redhat.com>
Cc: keycloak-user <keycloak-user@lists.jboss.org>
Subject: Re: [keycloak-user] Replace use of Infinispan with User Sessions SPI ?_______________________________________________ keycloak-user mailing list keycloak-user@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-userThere are two issues:1. Infinispan relies on JGroups, which is difficult to configure correctly with the various ping techniques that aren’t UDP multicast. I can elaborate on each one that we tested but it’s just generally complex to get right. That’s not to say it’s impossible or the biggest reason this is complicated on ECS or _insert container service here_, see #2 for that.2. It is difficult to do discovery correctly with JGroups and Docker. Non-privileged Docker instances - the default and recommend type - do not implicitly know their host’s IP. This causes IP mismatches between what JGroups thinks the machine’s IP is and what it actually is when connecting to hosts on different machines. This is the main issue and it’s not the fault of JGroups per se, but there’s no simple work around.Take for example a simple 2 node cluster:Node 1 comes up on the docker0 interface of host A with the IP address 172.16.0.4. The host A IP is 10.10.0.100.Node 2 comes up on the docker0 interface of host B with the IP address 172.16.0.8. The host B IP is 10.10.0.108.The 172.16 network is not routable between hosts (by design). Docker does port forwarding for ports we wish to expose to this works fine for HTTP/HTTPS but not the cluster traffic.So Node 1 will advertise itself as having IP 172.16.0.4 while Node 2 advertises 172.16.0.8. The two cannot talk to each other by default. However, using the hard coded IPs and TCP PING, we can set external_addr on Node 1 to 10.10.0.100 and external_addr on Node 2 to 10.10.0.108 and set initial_hosts to 10.10.0.100, 10.10.0.108. This will cause the nodes to discover each other. However, they will not form a cluster. The nodes will reject the handshake thinking they’re not actually 10.10.0.100 or 10.10.0.108 respectively.I’d like to discuss further and I can share where we’ve gotten so far with workarounds to this but it may be better to get into the weeds on another list.Let me know what you think.Best,ScottOn Dec 14, 2015, at 5:32 PM, Marek Posolda <mposolda@redhat.com> wrote:CCing Alan Field from RH Infinispan team and forwarding his question:I'd like to know which configuration files you are using and why is is harder to use with Amazon’s Docker service (ECS) or Beanstalk. I'd also be interested in how big a cluster you are using in AWS.
On 14/12/15 22:24, Scott Rossillo wrote:AWS was why we didn’t use Infinispan to begin with. That and it’s even more complicated when you deploy using Amazon’s Docker service (ECS) or Beanstalk.It’s too bad Infinispan / JGroups are beasts when the out of the box configuration can’t be used. I’m planning to document this as we fix but I’d avoid S3_PING and use JDBC_PING. You already need JDBC for the Keycloak DB, unless you’re using Mongo and it’s easier to test locally.TCPPING will bite you on AWS if Amazon decides to replace one of your instances (which it does occasionally w/ECS or Beanstalk).Best,ScottOn Dec 14, 2015, at 10:59 AM, Marek Posolda <mposolda@redhat.com> wrote:On 14/12/15 16:55, Marek Posolda wrote:On 14/12/15 15:58, Bill Burke wrote:Btv. if TCPPING or S3_PING is an issue, there is also AWS_PINGOn 12/14/2015 5:01 AM, Niko Köbler wrote:+1Hi Marek,seems to me it would be much easier to get Infinispan working on AWSAm 14.12.2015 um 08:50 schrieb Marek Posolda <mposolda@redhat.comMy current customer is running his apps in AWS. As known, multicast is
<mailto:mposolda@redhat.com>>:
Btv. what's your motivation to not use infinispan? If you afraid of
cluster communication, you don't need to worry much about it, because
if you run single keycloak through standalone.xml, the infinispan
automatically works in LOCAL mode and there is no any cluster
communication at all.
not available in cloud infrastructures. Wildfly/Infinispan Cluster works
pretty well with multicast w/o having to know too much about JGroups
config. S3_PING seams to be a viable way to get a cluster running in AWS.
But additionally, my customer doesn’t have any (deep) knowledge about
JBoss infrastructures and so I’m looking for a way to be able to run
Keycloak in a cluster in AWS without the need to build up deeper
knowlegde of JGroups config, for example in getting rid of Infinispan.
But I do understand all the concerns in doing this.
I still have to test S3_PING, if it works as easy as multicast. If yes,
we can use it, if no… I don’t know yet. But this gets offtopic for
Keycloak mailinglist, it’s more related to pure Wildfly/Infinispan.
than to write and maintain an entire new caching mechanism and hope we
don't refactor the cache SPI.
I am sure infinispan/JGroups has possibility to run in non-multicast
environment. You may just need to figure how exactly to configure it. So
I agree that this issue is more related to Wildfly/Infinispan itself
than to Keycloak.
You may need to use jgroups protocols like TCP instead of default UDP
and maybe TCPPING (this requires to manually list all your cluster
nodes. But still, it's much better option IMO than rewriting UserSession
SPI)
http://www.jgroups.org/manual-3.x/html/protlist.html#d0e5100 , but it's
not official part of jgroups.
Marek
Marek
_______________________________________________
keycloak-user mailing list
keycloak-user@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-user
_______________________________________________
keycloak-user mailing list
keycloak-user@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-user
keycloak-user mailing list
keycloak-user@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-user
_______________________________________________
keycloak-user mailing list
keycloak-user@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-user
keycloak-user mailing list
keycloak-user@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-user