[aquadrop]

So, how well is Kubernetes suited for working with local hardware? As I understand it's mainly supposed to work with some external abstracted storage, like AWS EBS, cephs, NFS etc But it's much slower that local SSD and for some small local installation maybe be not optimal. Like, running some not large non-critical service which requires database, several workers, some monitoring etc, overall 3-4 local servers. Is Kubernetes a good fit for this or it's only supposed to work with hive-like stateless workers connected to external storage over network?

[samnco]

You have several options for this. If it is non HA, then you can pin a RC to a specific node, and use hostpath storage. if the container fails, it will always respawn on the same node, maximizing uptime and also having max capacity from your local SSD. Alternatively, you can also run rook, which is backed by Ceph, and use affinity to make sure that your pods are very close to storage, and gain back some of the speed.

In general and in my opinion, it is always better to run with k8s since you have, for the stateless pieces, cluster awareness. So there is never a downside to it, especially as the control plane is very lightweight for small clusters, and you can colocate many parts.

[aquadrop]

Thanks for the answer. How easy will it be to transfer this cluster to another set of servers (with data copy)? Like, stop the service for several minutes, push the button "Transfer" and start service on new servers after that. As I understand you'll need rook for something like that?

[samnco]

Typically, you would have a set of "helm charts" (packages) for your application(s). So deploying, without data, would be something like a sequence of "helm install app-appId --values /path/to/config/for/environment.yaml"

At this stage, you have no data. Normally, if you app depends on data, the pods will keep failing until data has been moved and is available (at which point they stabilize in an equilibrium state).

If you run Ceph in both environments, then you may want to use Ceph replication. If you use another storage layer, then it's also up to you to make sure the data is moved around.

rook should have support for that use case. However, it is still alpha as per the GitHub readme, so use at your own risk. However, you may want to consider the data replication problem outside of the scope of k8s.

If the 2 sets of clusters are physically close to each other, you may want to just point the new apps to the old data and pull the switch from the first one.

Another option would be to run another beta feature in K8s called Federation, which allows to manage several cluster via a single control plane.

Sorry for the long comment, your question has a broad scope, and it's hard to answer without diving into details.

[aquadrop]

Thanks for your explanation. Looks like k8s is designed by Google with Google in mind - where data is somewhere over network and main problem is to manage code. I just thought it could be perfect solution to completely abstract and isolate such small services and move them around on local hardware with one push of a button, but it seems I'll have to think about external ways to manage data replication.

[yebyen]

So, your thought process has apparently led you quickly to the same conundrum that I have found myself in, after experimenting with this stuff for several generations.

You might be interested in Deis v1 PAAS as a historical reference. Deis is a company that specializes in Kubernetes (was just bought by Microsoft). They have been in the container orchestration game since before Kubernetes was a kid (and even before containers were really en vogue.) Deis v1 PAAS is the ancestor of Deis Workflow (or v2) which is a product that runs solely on Kubernetes.

Workflow does not do distributed filesystems internally where PAAS v1 did. That is why I'm telling you about it. PAAS v1 had its own storage layer called deis-store, which is (was) essentially CephFS and RBD under the hood. They did the best they could to make sure you did not have to be a competent Ceph admin just to get it started, but as it happens you would be running Ceph and susceptible to all of the Ceph issues.

Distributed filesystems are complicated business.

Deis was running Ceph for internal purposes. Deis used the Store component to take care of log aggregation ("Logger"), container image storage ("Registry"), and Database backups. When Workflow was released, it was targeting Kubernetes and required PVC support (AWS S3, or GCE PD, or one of the other storage drivers).

It still handles Log Aggregation, Database Backups, and Image Storage, but it uses the platform services to do this in an agnostic way (that is, whatever way you have configured to enable PVC support in Kubernetes.)

The Ceph support provided by Deis v1 was never intended to be an end-user service, it was for internal platform support. I thought about using it for my own purposes but never got around to it. The punchline is this: porting your applications to Deis requires you to re-think the way they are built to support 12factor ideology. Porting your applications to Kubernetes requires no such thing... but it helps!

Also that distributed storage is a complicated problem, and if you undertake to solve it for yourself, you should not take it lightly. (OR do take it lightly, but with the understanding that you haven't given much rigor to that part.)

What was good advice for Deis v1 is still good advice for Kubernetes today. If you are building a cluster or distributed architecture to scale, you should really consider separating it into tiers or planes. In Deis v1, the advice was to have a control plane (etcd, database), storage plane (deis-store or Ceph), data plane (your application / worker nodes), and routing mesh plane (deis-router, traefik, or the front-end HTTP serving nodes.) All of those planes may require special attention to make them reliable and scalable.

In my opinion none of this has anything to do with AWS or Google, but those two providers have positioned themselves well to be the people that do work on solving those hard problems for you. I would certainly start experimenting with Rook, I had good experiences with deis-store and I've been looking for something to fill the void for me.

[aquadrop]

Thanks, I know that distributed storage is hard, that's why I would be ok if K8s could just work with something like docker compose volumes on local storage and copy them between servers if needed.

[ferrantim]

You can use Portworx[1] to transfer data between servers and datacenters. It has a native kubernetes driver, is production ready being used by GE and Lufthansa airlines among others and does sync and async replication of data between environments. (disclosure I work for Portworx). [1] https://portworx.com/

[aquadrop]

Yes, looks interesting, but seems enterprisey and not open source?

[ferrantim]

Correct, it is not opensource but you can use it for free on up to 3 nodes. Not sure what "enterprisey" means but to me that sounds like it works well for large deployments and that is true. We have customers running us with Mesos on up to 1000 nodes and K8s on hundreds of nodes.

[aquadrop]

"Request a demo" and no pricing is what I mean with "enterprisey".

[eicnix]

You can run distributed stateful workloads on kubernetes with local storage and disable rescheduling when the node goes down. This means that you need to manually migrate/restart workloads if a node goes down. There is work being done on improving handling local node storage https://github.com/kubernetes/community/pull/306 but it doesn't scale as well as network storage.

If you have an existing SAN solution you can connect to it via fiber channel over iSCSI.