In a Devops context, Who is the responsible for the automation tasks ?
more exactly in the case of "pipeline as a code" in jenkins . who is supposed to do this task ? the devoloper or the operator ?
who is the actor ?
"The key to DevOps is greater collaboration between engineering and operations."
Roles : DEVOPS
Responsibilities :
1. Management : The DevOps Engineer ensures compliance to standards by monitoring the enterprise software and online websites. The engineer also regulates tools and processes in the engineering department and catalyses their simultaneous enhancement and evolution.
2 Design and Development : Design and Development of enterprise infrastructure and its architecture is one of the major responsibilities that DevOps Engineers are tasked with. Such Engineers are highly skilled coders which enable them to script tools aimed at enhancing developer productivity.
3 Collaboration and Support : The DevOps’ Modus Operandi is to collaborate extensively and yield results in all aspects of their work. Everything ranging from technical analyses to deployment and monitoring is handled, with the focus to enhance overall system reliability and scalability. The diagram below gives one a clear picture of the values that define DevOps.
4 Knowledge : DevOps staff and Engineers aid in promotion of knowledge sharing and overall DevOps culture throughout the engineering department
5 Versatile Duties : DevOps staff and Engineers also take on work delegated by IT director, CTO, DevOps head and more. They will also perform similar duties to the designations mentioned above.
Standard Definition :
DevOps is an IT mindset that encourages communication, collaboration, integration and automation among software developers and IT operations in order to improve the speed and quality of delivering software.
Layman's Definition :
Any kind of automation that enables the opportunity for smoother Development, Operations, Support and delivery of the product is DevOps.
Indrustry's View :
There usually are two prominent area's where DevOps mindset is applied across industry :
a) Primary functionaries of DevOps like
• Continuous Integration,
• Continuous Delivery,
• Continuous Deployment,
• Infrastructure as an code or infrastructure Automation,
• CI/CD Pipeline Orchestration,
• Configuration Management and
• Cloud Management (AWS, Azure or GCP)
b) Secondary functionaries of DevOps like
• SCM tool Support,
• Code Quality tech support like Sonar, Veracode, Nexus etc.
• Middleware tech support for tools like NPM, Kafka, Redis, NGIMX, API Gateway, etc
• Infrastructure tech support for components like F5, DNS, Web Servers, Build Server Management etc
• OS Level support for miscellaneous activities lke Server Patching, Scripting for automation of server level tasks etc.
There is no exact answer to this. It depends on many factors.
The development team will most likely want more ownership over the pipeline, and therefore would want to own the templates / code required to achieve the end goal of automation.
The opposite side of this is also completely valid. An operations team could be the custodians of a pipeline and mandate a development team must meet certain standards and use their automation pipelines to be able to get into an environment or onto a platform.
If an environment is an island, and development teams are trying to get to that island. Each development team can build their own bridge to get there. Or the operations team can build a bridge and ask the development teams to use it. Both are valid and the end result is the same either way.
If the end result is the same, then the only thing that matters is how you apply it in the context of the organization, team(s) and the people you are working with to achieve that common goal.
The assigned developer (and scrum team) should be responsible for the complete delivery of all aspects of development through final deployment into production. This fosters the notions of ownership and empowerment, and focuses responsibility for the full life cycle delivery of the service (application).
DevOps engineering should be responsible for providing an optimal tool chain and environments for rapid and quality delivery. I see DevOps role as the development focused precedent to SRE. If SRE's maintain high performance, stable production environments, then DevOps team maintains optimal development and testing environments. In theory, DevOps should extend into the realm of SRE, conforming into a single team supporting the environments for rapid innovation with quality to meet the business needs.
Everything from committing of the code to production. This includes
Automation
Production Support
Writing automation scripts
Debugging Production Infrastructure
In short Devops = Infrastructure + Automation + Support
Related
I study DevOps now and just understand the difference between waterfall and devops, its effect and benefits.
My question is What could be changed for service designer / developer / operating manager when a company implement DevOps Approach?
It is saying that when devops approach is implemented, developer group and operation group should have more conversation for CI/CD but I cannot find any more detail information.
I don't have any some kind of project, so please let me know what will be changed for each group of IT department.
If there is a guidance for implementing devops and guidance for desinger/developer/operating manager, it will really be helpful.
thank you so much.
First of all, I would like to turn your attention to "waterfall and devops" comparison - these are apples and oranges.
Waterfall can be compared to agile (scrum, kanban, etc) but not to DevOps.
Waterfall is a code delivery frequencty approach. But DevOps is a culture.
What will be changed for developer:
His code will be executed exactly in the same environment as he expects to. Whether it is dev, test or prod - it will run in the same container within the same environment variables (only physical resources like CPU/RAM/HDD can differ).
Thus, it significantly decreases the risk to fail in production and subsequently decreases the need to connect to production for investigation.
What will be changed for operations (SRE, system admin):
He gets code with described environment [read more about Infrastructure as code (IAC)] and he doesn't care what dependencies, operation system or whatever it has. All he needs to serve: abstract layer beneath the code (like Kubernetes, for example). And this layer does not depend of code state, thus the work scope of operations guys are better planned and do not depend of milestones or whatever.
What will be changed for manager:
He has better predictability in his forecasts, as bugs now appear no that frequently because same container that was in test goes to production. Also troubleshooting takes more predictable time as microservices much easier to troublshoot like electrical chain.
I could not find the difference between these two. Are these same or different.
The first difference is support (as others have mentioned). CloudBees offers enterprise grade support as well as a fully vetted and tested version of Jenkins that will be more stable under various plugins and deployments. You can actually purchase "Support Only" from CloudBees if you are satisfied with your OSS Jenkins deployment and simply want support during upgrades, patching, break/fix, etc.
From a feature perspective, CloudBees brings a lot from an enterprise manageability, scalability, and security standpoint.
Manageability: CloudBees comes with CJOC (CloudBees Jenkins Operations Center) built into the software. This is a single pane of glass management console that allows organizations or large teams to centrally manage the jenkins environment. Things like folders, RBAC, pipeline and master templates, and the ability to rapidly spin up/tear down a containerized jenkins master are all managed from this single console.
Scaleability: CloudBees leverages Kubernetes to provide organizations with the ability to elastically scale Jenkins environments as needed. With CloudBees, your oganization can move away from a single "Monolithic"/"Frankenstein" master and into a multi-master and distributed pipeline architecture. This greatly reduces upgrade and administration complexity. This also eliminates the risk from a single point of failure that a monolithic architecture exposes.
Security: CloudBees allows organizations to install Roll Based Access Control within Jenkins. This keeps users from accidentally or intentionally accessing repos that they shouldn't be allowed to interact with. CloudBees also provides "folders" to segregate specific job executions onto specific agents. Lastly CloudBees allows organizations to create pipeline templates and associated plugins for each team. These templates can be as rigid or loose as desired per the organizations security policies.
CloudBees is regularly adding enhancements to further differentiate themselves from Jenkins Open Source and make themselves more appealing to large enterprise requirements.
On top of the above, CloudBees has developed a presentation layer that rides on top of Jenkins for SDLC pipeline, CD monitoring, and metric tracking called DevOptics.
Jenkins is open source while CloudBees Jenkins Enterprise is a commercial extension of open source Jenkins. Go here for an up to date comparison table.
We are using Jira to manage the flow of development of a single application in a Scrum development team.
We want to extend the usage of Jira to include the other applications and micro-services on which the main application relies.
They run with the same development team and monthly release cycle, so we'd like to share the Versions and Epics, having them affect multiple services.
We use Bamboo and Bitbucket and would like to make sure that the requirements for making a particular release is clear in Jira (tracking the links between the stories, software versions and services that need to be released).
If find it hard to see clear advice from Atlassian that points to a particular design, though suspect that components give us what we need.
Has anyone else implemented something similar.
Are components the way forward? Or is something more bespoke / a plug-in a better route?
What are peoples opinions on jira studio? i.e. using the hosted product for a large company. Especially with hosted source control and reliability of the service?
Is this product up to large scale implementations yet?
I've been using JIRA Studio (hosted) extensively over the last few weeks with a Java project. So far my experience has been resoundingly positive, with the following caveats:
Setting up Elastic Bamboo requires filing a support ticket. While admittedly the process is fully automated and very easy, it can still take a day or two before you can begin setting up your builds;
In my opinion, SVN hosting is limiting. I've been very much looking forward to working with git or Mercurial, but I'm not aware of any plans to add support for those. You can certainly find a separate host for your sources, but you'd be losing on ease of use, out-of-the-box integration with issue tracking and the JIRA dashboard (which I've grown to absolutely love) and will have to sign with a second provider.
I would rate the primary advantages as:
Very low integration cost (compared to e.g. setting up your own Bugzilla+Mediawiki+Hudson setup);
Relatively low TCO, particularly if you have a small staff and no Linux hackers to get you started up;
Very smooth administration and usage experience. I've very rarely had to look in the documentation, and then it was usually clean and informative.
I am looking for a comparison between IBM Build Forge (Rational) and Hudson CI.
At work we have full licenses for BuildForge but recently we started using Hudson for doing continuous integration and automating other tasks.
I used BuildForge very little and I would like to see if there are any special advantages of BuildForge over Hudson.
Also it would be very helpful to see a list of specific advantages of Hudson over BuildForge.
I not sure if it important or not, but I found interesting that Build Forge is not listed under continuous integration tools at wikipedia.
Thanks for bringing attention to the fact it was not on the wikipedia list of continuous integration applications. I have now added it. Build Forge has been a leader in providing continuous integration capabilities by use of it's SCM adapters for many, many years. Build Forge has a strength in supporting many platforms through its use of agents. These agents can run on Windows, Linux, AIX, Solaris, System Z, and many more -- they even give you the source code for the agents for free so you can compile it on just about any platform. The interface allows you to easily automate tasks that run sequentially or in parallel on one or multiple boxes. Selectors allow you to select a specific build server by host name or by criteria such as "any windows machine with 2gb of ram" from a pool of available agents. The entire process is fully auditable, utilizes role based permissions, and is stored in a central enterprise database such as DB2, Oracle, SQL Server, and others.
One of the most compelling reasons to use Build Forge is it's Rational Automation Framework for WebSphere. It allows a full integration into WebSphere environments to automate deployments and configurations of WebSphere through out of the box libraries. The full installation, patching, deployment of apps, and configuration of WAS and Portal can be performed using these libraries. To find out more, it is best to contact your IBM Rational representative.
You can use RAFW (IBM Rational Automation Framework for WebSphere) with BuildForge. It does not make sense to use RAFW with other ci servers, since RAFW requires BuildForge.
You have support for BuildForge and it integrates with other IBM software like ClearCase. Theoretically you have only to deal with one vendor if something in the chain does not work, but IBM has different support teams for their products and you might become their ping pong ball. :(
Hudson is open source (if you like that), that means you can get the source and modify it to serve you better. But the release cycle is very short (about 1 week, agile development). There is a more stable version with support available now (for cash of course) from the company of the main author of Hudson.
Hudson is currently main stream and is actively developed. I don't know how the usability of BuildForge is, but Hudson is good (not always perfect). The plugin concept of Hudson is a great plus, not sure if BuildForge has it as well.
Currently, we are using Hudson, but BuildForge was not looked at in detail.
You need to define what you would need continuous integration for (e.g. building, testing). Having used Hudson, I can vouch for its usefulness and effectiveness. There are many plugins that extend Hudson that can suit various needs. And you can't beat the price point (free).
You need to inquire as to why a BuildForge license was obtained at your place of employment. Perhaps someone on your team knows why this was done. If it isn't necessary for your needs, don't renew your BuildForge license and simply continue using Hudson.
Being a BuildForge/RAFW user, I have to object to one point stated above. It is perfectly possible to use RAFW without BuildForge. It is driven by a command line script, and you could use for example Hudson and RAFW together just fine.
A sample command would look like:
rafw.sh -e env -c cell -t was_common_configure_start_dmgr
The primary differentiators IMO:
Hudson/Jenkins is more readily extensible with the many existing plugins. It has a large active community and plenty information and documentation.
BuildForge can be configured with agents running on multiple machines and tasks can be assigned to run on a target agent. Reliable vendor support.