TL;DR Kubernetes allows all containers to access all other containers on the entire cluster, this seems to greatly increase the security risks. How to mitigate?
Unlike Docker, where one would usually only allow network connection between containers that need to communicate (via --link), each Pod on Kubernetes can access all other Pods on that cluster.
That means that for a standard Nginx + PHP/Python + MySQL/PostgreSQL, running on Kubernetes, a compromised Nginx would be able to access the database.
People used to run all those on a single machine, but that machine would have serious periodic updates (more than containers), and SELinux/AppArmor for serious people.
One can mitigate a bit the risks by having each project (if you have various independent websites for example) run each on their own cluster, but that seems wasteful.
The current Kubernetes security seems to be very incomplete. Is there already a way to have a decent security for production?
In the not-too-distant future we will introduce controls for network policy in Kubernetes. As of today that is not integrated, but several vendors (e.g. Weave, Calico) have policy engines that can work with Kubernetes.
As #tim-hockin says, we do plan to have a way to partition the network.
But, IMO, for systems with more moving parts, (which is where Kubernetes should really shine), I think it will be better to focus on application security.
Taking your three-layer example, the PHP pod should be authorized to talk to the database, but the Nginx pod should not. So, if someone figures out a way to execute an arbitrary command in the Nginx pod, they might be able to send a request to the database Pod, but it should be rejected as not authorized.
I prefer the application-security approach because:
I don't think the --links approach will scale well to 10s of different microservices or more. It will be too hard to manage all the links.
I think as the number of devs in your org grows, you will need fine grained app-level security anyhow.
In terms of being like docker compose, it looks like docker compose currently only works on single machines, according to this page:
https://github.com/docker/compose/blob/master/SWARM.md
Related
My organization manages systems where each client is provisioned a VPS and then their tech stack is spun up on that system via Docker Compose.
Data is stored on-system, using Docker Compose volumes. None of the fancy named storage - just good old direct path volumes.
While this solution is workable, the problem is that this method does not scale. We can always give the VPS more CPU/Memory but that does not fix the underlying issues.
Staging / development environments must be brought up manually - and there is no service redundancy. Hot swapping is impossible with our current system.
Kubernetes has been pitched to me to solve our problems, but honestly I have no idea where to begin - most of the documentation is obtuse and I have failed to find somebody with our particular predicament.
The end goal would be to have just a few high-spec machines running Kubernetes - with redundancy, staging, and the ability to spin up new clients as necessary (without having to provision additional machines or external IPs).
What specific tools would my organization need to use to achieve this goal?
Are there any tools that would allow us to bring over our existing Docker Compose stacks into Kubernetes?
Where to begin: given what you're telling us, I would first look into my options to implement some SDS.
You're currently using local volumes, which you probably won't be able to do with Kubernetes - or at least shouldn't, if you don't want to bind your containers to a unique node.
The most easy way - while not necessarily the one I would recommend - would be to use some NFS servers. Even better: with some DRBD, pacemaker / corosync, using a VIP for failover -- or the FreeBSD way: hastd, carp, ifstated, maybe some zfs. You would probably have to deploy distinct systems scaling your Kubernetes cluster, distributing IOs, ... a single NFS server doesn't last long without its load going over 50 and iowaits spiking ...
A better way would be to look into actual SDS solutions. One I could recommend is Ceph, though there's a lot of new solutions I'm less familiar with ... and there's GlusterFS I would definitely avoid. An easy way to deploy Ceph would be to use ceph-ansible.
Given what corporate hardware you have at your disposal, maybe you would have some NetApp or equivalent, something that can implement NFS shares, and/or some iSCSI gateways.
Now, those are all solutions you could run on the side, although note that you would also find "CNS" solutions (container native), which are meant to be deployed on top of Kubernetes. Ceph clusters can be managed using Rook. These can be interesting, though in terms of maintenance and operations, it requires good knowledge of both the solution you operate and kubernetes/containers in general: troubleshooting issues and fixing outages may not be as easy as a good-old bare-meta/VM setup. For a first Kubernetes experience: I would refrain myself. When you'll feel comfortable enough, go ahead.
In any cases, another critical consideration before deploying your cluster would be the network that would host your installation. Consider that Kubernetes should not be directly deployed on public instances: you would probably want to have some private VLAN, maybe an internal DNS, a local resitry (could be Kubernetes-hosted), or other tools such as an LDAP server, some SMTP relay, HTTP cache/proxies, loadbalancers to put in front of your API, ...
Once you've made up your mind regarding those issues, you can look into deploying a Kubernetes cluster using tools such as Kubespray (ansible) or Kops (uses Terraform, and thus requires some cloud API, eg: aws). Both projects are part of the Kubernetes project and maintained by its community. Kubespray would cover all scenarios (IAAS & bare-metal), integrate with popular SDS out of the box, can ship with various ingress controllers, ... overall offers good defaults, and lots of variables to customize your installation.
Start with a 3-master 2-workers cluster, make sure the resulting cluster matches what you would expect.
Before going to prod, take your time to properly translate your existing configurations. Sometime, refactoring code or images could be worth it.
Going to prod, consider adding a group of "infra" nodes: if you want to host some logging solution or other internal services that are somewhat critical to users and shouldn't suffer outages caused by end-users workloads (eg: ingress routers, monitoring, logging, integrated registry, ...).
Kubespray: https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/kubespray/
Kops: https://github.com/kubernetes/kops
Ceph: https://ceph.com/en/discover/
Ceph Ansible: https://github.com/ceph/ceph-ansible
Rook (Ceph CNS): https://github.com/rook/rook
tldr; does docker swarm have a forceful and centered proxy setting that explicitly proxies all internet traffic in all services that is hosted in the cluster? Or any other tip of how to go about using a global proxy solution in a swarm cluster...?
Obs! this is not a question about a reversed proxy.
I have a docker swarm cluster (moving to Kubernatives as a solution is off-topic)
I have 3 managers and 3 workers, I label the workers accordingly to the expected containers they can host. The cluster only deploys docker swarm services, when I write "container" in this writing I'm referring to a docker swarm service container.
One of the workers is labelless, though active, and therefore does not host any containers to any service. If I would label the worker to allow it to host any container, then I will suffer issues in different firewalls that I don't always control, because the IP simply is not allowed.
This causes the problem for me that I can't do horizontal scaling, because when I add a new worker to the cluster, I also add a new IP that the requests can originate from. To update the many firewalls that would need to be updated because of a horizontal scaling is quite large, and simply not an option.
In my attempt to solve this on my own, I did what every desperate developer does and googled for a solution... and there is a simple and official documentation to be able to achieve this: https://docs.docker.com/network/proxy/
I followed the environment variables examples on that page. Doing so did however not really help, none of the traffic goes through the proxy I configured. After some digging, I noticed that this is due to nodejs (all services are written using nodejs), ignoring the proxy settings set by the environment. To solve that nodejs can use these proxy settings, I have to refactor a lot of components in a lot of services... a workload that is quite trumendus and possibly dangerous to perform given the different protocols and ports I use to connect to different infrastructural services outside the cluster...
I expect there to be a better solution for this, I expect there to be a built in functionality that forces all internet access from the containers to go through this proxy, a setting I don't have to make in the code, in my implementations. I expect there to be a wrapping solution that I can control in a central manner.
Now reading this again, I think maybe I should have tested the docker client configuration on the same page to see if it has the desired effect I'm requiring, but I assume they both would have the same outcome, being described on the same page with no noticeable difference written in the documentation.
My question is, is there a solution, that I just don't seem to be able to find, that wraps the proxy functionality around all the services? or is it a requirement to solve these issues in the implementation itself?
My thought is to maybe depend on an image, that in its turn depends on the nodejs image that I use today - that is responsible for this wrapping functionality, though still on an implantation level. Doing so would however still force the inheriting of a distributed solution of this kind - if I need to change the proxy configurations, then I need to change them everywhere, and redeploy everything... given a less complex solution without an in common data access layer.
I'm currently rethinking an architecture I was planning.
So suppose I have a system where there are about 8 different services interacting with a single database. Some services listen and react to database events and do stuff like sending SMS.
Then there's an API layer sitting on top of the database and a frontend connected to this API. So in my understanding this is rather monolithic.
In fact I don't see any advantage of using containers in this scenario. Their real advantage is that they can be swapped out, right? My intuition tells me that there is often no purpose in doing that except maybe some load balancing on API level. Instead many companies just seem to blindly jump on the hype train of containerizing everything.
Now the question arises, is docker the right tool for this context? In each forum people refrain from using docker for the sole purpose of a more resource efficient "VM" aggregating all services within a single container. However this is the only real scenario I'd see any advantages in using docker (the environment, e.g. alpine-linux, is the same on all customer's computers when rolling out the system).
Even docker-compose is not "grouping" containers together as a complete system only exposing port 443 but instead starts an infrastructure of multiple interacting containers. Oftentimes services like Kubernetes are then used for deploying these infrastructures on "nodes", i.e. VMs.
However, in my opinion it would be great to have a single self-contained container without putting them into a VM. This container would include every necessary service only exposing one port, e.g. 443.
Since I'm rather confused now, I'd really appreciate your help here.
Thanks in advance!
Kubernetes does many things and has many useful features. But Kubernetes also require that you architect your apps to follow The Twelve-Factor App principles. An important thing here is that your apps are stateless.
When the app is stateless, it is easy to scale out horizontally - this can also be done automatically when the load increases.
When the app is stateless, it is easy to do Rolling Deployments that upgrade the app to a new version without downtime.
You can run containers on bare metal Linux servers, but this is mostly very big servers. If you use a cloud, you probably want more VM instances, but distributed to 3 Availability Zones - for increased availability.
"Self-contained container - exposing one port". With Kubernetes, you typically use a private network and you only expose services via a single load balancer - typically on a port, but different URLs send traffic to different services.
Some services listen and react to database events and do stuff like sending SMS.
As I said, many things is easier when it is horizontal scalable, but this kind of app - that listen for events and react - is one of few examples where you can not scale horizontally. But it is a good fit for a serverless architecture instead, possibly on Kubernetes using Knative.
Now the question arises, is docker the right tool for this context?
My opinion is that most workload will run in containers. It is more a question about how it should be run in Kubernetes - one or multiple replicas. As stateless Deployments or stateful StatefulSet or some other way.
Our cloud application consists of 3 tightly coupled Docker containers, Nginx, Web and Mongo. Currently we run these containers on a single machine. However as our users are increasing we are looking for a solution to scale. Using Kubernetes we would form a multi container pod. If we are to replicate we need to replicate all 3 containers as a unit. Our cloud application is consumed by mobile app users. Our app can only handle approx 30000 users per Worker node and we intend to place a single pod on a single worker node. Once a mobile device is connected to worker node it must continue to only use that machine ( unique IP address )
We plan on using Kubernetes to manage the containers. Load balancing doesn't work for our use case as a mobile device needs to be tied to a single machine once assigned and each Pod works independently with its own persistent volume. However we need a way of spinning up new Pods on worker nodes if the number of users goes over 30000 and so on.
The idea is we have some sort of custom scheduler which assigns a mobile device a Worker Node ( domain/ IPaddress) depending on the number of users on that node.
Is Kubernetes a good fit for this design and how could we implement a custom pod scale algorithm.
Thanks
Piggy-Backing on the answer of Jonah Benton:
While this is technically possible - your problem is not with Kubernetes it's with your Application! Let me point you the problem:
Our cloud application consists of 3 tightly coupled Docker containers, Nginx, Web, and Mongo.
Here is your first problem: Is you can only deploy these three containers together and not independently - you cannot scale one or the other!
While MongoDB can be scaled to insane loads - if it's bundled with your web server and web application it won't be able to...
So the first step for you is to break up these three components so they can be managed independently of each other. Next:
Currently we run these containers on a single machine.
While not strictly a problem - I have serious doubt's what it would mean to scale your application and what the challenges that come with scalability!
Once a mobile device is connected to worker node it must continue to only use that machine ( unique IP address )
Now, this IS a problem. You're looking to run an application on Kubernetes but I do not think you understand the consequences of doing that: Kubernetes orchestrates your resources. This means it will move pods (by killing and recreating) between nodes (and if necessary to the same node). It does this fully autonomous (which is awesome and gives you a good night sleep) If you're relying on clients sticking to a single nodes IP, you're going to get up in the middle of the night because Kubernetes tried to correct for a node failure and moved your pod which is now gone and your users can't connect anymore. You need to leverage the load-balancing features (services) in Kubernetes. Only they are able to handle the dynamic changes that happen in Kubernetes clusters.
Using Kubernetes we would form a multi container pod.
And we have another winner - No! You're trying to treat Kubernetes as if it were your on-premise infrastructure! If you keep doing so you're going to fail and curse Kubernetes in the process!
Now that I told you some of the things you're thinking wrong - what a person would I be if I did not offer some advice on how to make this work:
In Kubernetes your three applications should not run in one pod! They should run in separate pods:
your webservers work should be done by Ingress and since you're already familiar with nginx, this is probably the ingress you are looking for!
Your web application should be a simple Deployment and be exposed to ingress through a Service
your database should be a separate deployment which you can either do manually through a statefullset or (more advanced) through an operator and also exposed to the web application trough a Service
Feel free to ask if you have any more questions!
Building a custom scheduler and running multiple schedulers at the same time is supported:
https://kubernetes.io/docs/tasks/administer-cluster/configure-multiple-schedulers/
That said, to the question of whether kubernetes is a good fit for this design- my answer is: not really.
K8s can be difficult to operate, with the payoff being the level of automation and resiliency that it provides out of the box for whole classes of workloads.
This workload is not one of those. In order to gain any benefit you would have to write a scheduler to handle the edge failure and error cases this application has (what happens when you lose a node for a short period of time...) in a way that makes sense for k8s. And you would have to come up to speed with normal k8s operations.
With the information provided, hard pressed to see why one would use k8s for this workload over just running docker on some VMs and scripting some of the automation.
I'm trying to understand the benefits of Docker better and I am not really understanding how it would work in production.
Let's say I have a web frontend, a rest api backend and a db. That makes 3 containers.
Let's say that I want 3 of the front end, 5 of the backend and 7 of the db. (Minor question: Does it ever make sense to have less dbs than backend servers?)
Now, given the above scenario, if I package them all on the same host then I gain the benefit of efficiently using the resources of the host, but then I am DOA when that machine fails or has a network partition.
If I separate them into 1 full application (ie 1 FE, 1 BE & 1 DB) per host, and put extra containers on their own host, I get some advantages of using resources efficiently, but it seems to me that I still lose significantly when I have a network partition since it will take down multiple services.
Hence I'm almost leaning to the conclusion that I should be putting in 1 container per host, but then that means I am using my resources pretty inefficiently and then what are the benefits of containers in production? I mean, an OS might be an extra couple gigs per machine in storage size, but most cloud providers give you a minimum of 10 gigs storage. And let's face it, a rest api backend or a web front end is not gonna even come close to the 10 gigs...even including the OS.
So, after all that, I'm trying to figure out if I'm missing the point of containers? Are the benefits of keeping all containers of an application on 1 host, mostly tied to testing and development benefits?
I know there are benefits from moving containers amongst different providers/machines easily, but for the most part, I don't see that as a huge gain personally since that was doable with images...
Are there any other benefits for containers in production that I am missing? Or are the main benefits for testing and development? (Am I thinking about containers in production wrong)?
Note: The question is very broad and could fill an entire book but I'll shed some light.
Benefits of containers
The exciting part about containers is not about their use on a single host, but their use across hosts connected on a large cluster. Do not look at your machines as independent docker hosts, but as a pool of resource to host your containers.
Containers alone are not ground-breaking (ie. Docker's CTO stating at the last DockerCon that "nobody cares about containers"), but coupled to state of the art schedulers and container orchestration frameworks, they become a very powerful abstraction to handle production-grade software.
As to the argument that it also applies to Virtual Machines, yes it does, but containers have some technical advantage (See: How is Docker different from a normal virtual machine) over VMs that makes them convenient to use.
On a Single host
On a single host, the benefits you can get from containers are (amongst many others):
Use as a development environment mimicking the behavior on a real production cluster.
Reproducible builds independent of the host (convenient for sharing)
Testing new software without bloating your machine with packages you won't use daily.
Extending from a single host to a pool of machines (cluster)
When time comes to manage a production cluster, there are two approaches:
Create a couple of docker hosts and run/connect containers together "manually" through scripts or using solutions like docker-compose. Monitoring the lifetime of your services/containers is at your charge, and you should be prepared to handle service downtime.
Let a container orchestrator deal with everything and monitor the lifetime of your services to better cope with failures.
There are plenty of container orchestrators: Kubernetes, Swarm, Mesos, Nomad, Cloud Foundry, and probably many others. They power many large-scale companies and infrastructures, like Ebay, so they sure found a benefit in using these.
Pick the right replication strategy
A container is better used as a disposable resource meaning you can stop and restart the DB independently and it shouldn't impact the backend (other than throwing an error because the DB is down). As such you should be able to handle any kind of network partition as long as your services are properly replicated across several hosts.
You need to pick a proper replication strategy, to make sure your service stays up and running. You can for example replicate your DB across Cloud provider Availability Zones so that when an entire zone goes down, your data remains available.
Using Kubernetes for example, you can put each of your containers (1 FE, 1 BE & 1 DB) in a pod. Kubernetes will deal with replicating this pod on many hosts and monitor that these pods are always up and running, if not a new pod will be created to cope with the failure.
If you want to mitigate the effect of network partitions, specify node affinities, hinting the scheduler to place containers on the same subset of machines and replicate on an appropriate number of hosts.
How many containers per host?
It really depends on the number of machines you use and the resources they have.
The rule is that you shouldn't bloat a host with too many containers if you don't specify any resource constraint (in terms of CPU or Memory). Otherwise, you risk compromising the host and exhaust its resources, which in turn will impact all the other services on the machine. A good replication strategy is not only important at a single service level, but also to ensure good health for the pool of services that are sharing a host.
Resource constraint should be dealt with depending on the type of your workload: a DB will probably use more resources than your Front-end container so you should size accordingly.
As an example, using Swarm, you can explicitely specify the number of CPUs or Memory you need for a given service (See docker service documentation). Although there are many possibilities and you can also give an upper bound/lower bound in terms of CPU or Memory usage. Depending on the values chosen, the scheduler will pin the service to the right machine with available resources.
Kubernetes works pretty much the same way and you can specify limits for your pods (See documentation).
Mesos has more fine grained resource management policies with frameworks (for specific workloads like Hadoop, Spark, and many more) and with over-commiting capabilities. Mesos is especially convenient for Big Data kind of workloads.
How should services be split?
It really depends on the orchestration solution:
In Docker Swarm, you would create a service for each component (FE, BE, DB) and set the desired replication number for each service.
In Kubernetes, you can either create a pod encompassing the entire application (FE, BE, DB and the volume attached to the DB) or create separate pods for the FE, BE, DB+volume.
Generally: use one service per type of container. Regarding groups of containers, evaluate if it is more convenient to scale the entire group of container (as an atomic unit, ie. a pod) than to manage them separately.
Sum up
Containers are better used with an orchestration framework/platform. There are plenty of available solutions to deal with container scheduling and resource management. Pick one that might fit your use case, and learn how to use it. Always pick an appropriate replication strategy, keeping in mind possible failure modes. Specify resource constraints for your containers/services when possible to avoid resource exhaustion which could potentially lead to bringing a host down.
This depends on the type of application you run in your containers. From the top of my head I can think of a couple different ways to look at this:
is your application diskspace heavy?
do you need the application fail save on multiple machines?
can you run multiple different instance of different applications on the same host without decreasing performance of them?
do you use software like kubernetes or swarm to handle your machines?
I think most of the question are interesting to answer even without containers. Containers might free you of thinking about single hosts, but you still have to decide and measure the load of your host machines yourself.
Minor question: Does it ever make sense to have less dbs than backend servers?
Yes.
Consider cases where you hit normal(without many joins) SQL select statements to get data from the database but your Business Logic demands too much computation. In those cases you might consider keeping your Back-End Service count high and Database Service count low.
It all depends on the use case which is getting solved.
The number of containers per host depends on the design ratio of the host and the workload ratio of the containers. Both ratios are
Throughput/Capacity ratios. In the old days, this was called E/B for execution/bandwidth. Execution was cpu and banwidth was I/o. Solutions were said to be cpu or I/o bound.
Today memories are very large the critical factor is usually cpu/nest
capacity. We describe workloads as cpu intense or nest intense. A useful proxy for nest capacity is the size of highest level cache. A useful design ratio estimator is (clock x cores)/cache. Fir the same core count the machine with a lower design ratio will hold more containers. In part this is because the machine with more cache will scale better and see less saturation at higher utilization. By