[keycloak-user] Replace use of Infinispan with User Sessions SPI ?

Tue Dec 15 14:52:11 EST 2015

Hey Scott, 

(I'm resending this with a little more information, since I can now post without being moderated) :-) 

----- Original Message -----

> From: "Scott Rossillo" <srossillo at smartling.com>
> To: "Marek Posolda" <mposolda at redhat.com>, afield at redhat.com
> Cc: "keycloak-user" <keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org>, "Bill Burke"
> <bburke at redhat.com>
> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 6:31:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [keycloak-user] Replace use of Infinispan with User Sessions SPI
> ?

> There 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.

The Infinispan server and JBoss EAP include a TCP-based stack in the configuration to run on EC2 that looks like this: 

<stack name="s3"> 
<transport type="TCP" socket-binding="jgroups-tcp"/> 
<protocol type="S3_PING"> 
<property name="location">${jgroups.s3.bucket:}</property> 
<property name="access_key">${jgroups.s3.access_key:}</property> 
<property name="secret_access_key">${jgroups.s3.secret_access_key:}</property> 
<property name="pre_signed_delete_url">${jgroups.s3.pre_signed_delete_url:}</property> 
<property name="pre_signed_put_url">${jgroups.s3.pre_signed_put_url:}</property> 
<property name="prefix">${jgroups.s3.prefix:}</property> 
</protocol> 
<protocol type="MERGE3"/> 
<protocol type="FD_SOCK" socket-binding="jgroups-tcp-fd"/> 
<protocol type="FD_ALL"/> 
<protocol type="VERIFY_SUSPECT"/> 
<protocol type="pbcast.NAKACK2"> 
<property name="use_mcast_xmit">false</property> 
</protocol> 
<protocol type="UNICAST3"/> 
<protocol type="pbcast.STABLE"/> 
<protocol type="pbcast.GMS"/> 
<protocol type="MFC"/> 
<protocol type="FRAG2"/> 
</stack> 

With this in the configuration file, you can start the server with the following system properties defined: 

bin/clustered.sh -Djboss.node.name=node0 -Djboss.socket.binding.port-offset=0 -Djboss.default.jgroups.stack=s3 -Djgroups.s3.bucket=<s3_bucket_name> -Djgroups.s3.access_key=<access_key> -Djgroups.s3.secret_access_key=<secret_access_key> -Djboss.bind.address=$IP -Djboss.bind.address.management=$IP 

This will cause the server to start and the nodes will write to a file in the S3 bucket to allow the nodes to discover each other. I do not see this stack defined in the configuration used by WildFly 9, but it should work there as well. It is also possible to use the JGroups Gossip Router for discovery, but it requires running a separate process that all of the nodes contact during the discovery phase. I have the following in my .bashrc to set the IP environment variable: 

export IP=`GET http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/local-ipv4` 

I have verified that I can cluster plain EC2 instances on the internal IP addresses: (i.e. 172.31.4.165 and 172.31.18.207) These addresses are not publically accessible though, but this cluster can be a cache for applications running in EC2. 

> 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.

I've been trying to dig through the documentation to find out how you create multi-container applications that need to network with each other on Amazon's ECS, but so far I haven't gotten very far. Feel free to send me pointers, if you have any. 

> 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.

This issue is a little trickier, and I think we should probably move the discussion to the jgroups-users list which you can subscribe to here. [1] Bela Ban may have some ideas about how to set the binding address or interface to get around this. The Fabric8 project is also using a JGroups discovery protocol that relies on Kubernetes, but I don't think ECS uses Kubernetes. 

Thanks, 
Alan 

[1] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/javagroups-users 

> Best,
> Scott

> Scott Rossillo
> Smartling | Senior Software Engineer
> srossillo at smartling.com

> > On Dec 14, 2015, at 5:32 PM, Marek Posolda < mposolda at 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,
> > 
> 
> > > Scott
> > 
> 

> > > Scott Rossillo
> > 
> 
> > > Smartling | Senior Software Engineer
> > 
> 
> > > srossillo at smartling.com
> > 
> 

> > > > On Dec 14, 2015, at 10:59 AM, Marek Posolda < mposolda at redhat.com >
> > > > wrote:
> > > 
> > 
> 

> > > > On 14/12/15 16:55, Marek Posolda wrote:
> > > 
> > 
> 

> > > > > On 14/12/15 15:58, Bill Burke wrote:
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 

> > > > > > On 12/14/2015 5:01 AM, Niko Köbler wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 

> > > > > > > Hi Marek,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 

> > > > > > > > Am 14.12.2015 um 08:50 schrieb Marek Posolda <
> > > > > > > > mposolda at redhat.com
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > < mailto:mposolda at 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.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 

> > > > > > > My current customer is running his apps in AWS. As known,
> > > > > > > multicast
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 

> > > > > > seems to me it would be much easier to get Infinispan working on
> > > > > > AWS
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > than to write and maintain an entire new caching mechanism and hope
> > > > > > we
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > don't refactor the cache SPI.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 

> > > > > +1
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 

> > > > > 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)
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 

> > > > Btv. if TCPPING or S3_PING is an issue, there is also AWS_PING
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > 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 at lists.jboss.org
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-user
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 

> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > keycloak-user mailing list
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-user
> > > 
> > 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/keycloak-user/attachments/20151215/79f3ec71/attachment-0001.html 