View
832
Download
3
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Citation preview
Rob Hirschfeld
Dell, Distinguished Engineer
http://lifeatthebar.com
• This session could repeat a lot from last summit
• http://www.openstack.org/summit/san-diego-2012/openstack-summit-
sessions/presentation/getting-from-folsom-to-grizzly-a-devops-upgrade-
pattern
• Interoperability & Reference Architecture
• Reference Architecture w/ Heat (Tuesday @ 11:00)
• Interop Panel (Tuesday @ 5:20)
• Upgrade Projects
• https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Upgrade-with-minimal-downtime
• https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Grenade
• The “Problem“ with Migration
• Paths to Nirvana (or Roads to Perdition)
• Alternatives
• An Opinion
• Discussion
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/begin/cells/organelles/
F G
H
• OpenStack has 3 month release major/minor cycle
• Major version every 6 months
• Minor version (but important) 3 & 6 months after release
• Lots of Changes
• Bugs are fixed
• Operating Systems upgrade
• New technologies appear
• Whole projects are split off
• We expect operators to
• Keep systems running
• Never loose data
• And… Stay up to date http://cdn2.arkive.org
sockeye-salmon-predated-by-grizzly-bear-on-migration-upstream.jpg
• What are we upgrading? • OpenStack - Yes!
• Dependent packages - Probably?
• Base OS - Maybe?
• What is the state during the "in-between" time? • Infrastructure downtime?
• VM downtime? VM Reboot? Controlled/Informed?
• Availability Windows?
• What contingency plans? • Dry run? Maybe.
• Recover by going backwards? Maybe.
• What level of safety and trust do you need? • Assure data integrity?
• Assure Infrastructure Integrity?
• Maintain Security?
• How long can the migration take? • Big bang move or gradual migrate?
• How will my API consumers/ecosystem cope?
• Can Keystone Grizzly work with Folsom Nova???
• What about futures? G.1 to G.2? H to I?
• Can I skip versions? Jump from G to I? http://www.publicdomainpictures.net
Steep Steps by Peter Griffin
• Beginning Answers
• Distros will manage dependencies and packaging
• We can’t lose data or compromise security
• Infrastructure state and integrity will vary by solution
• Assumption of Staging
• Some managed environment (not a manual deploy)
• Staging/test environment to get "familiar" with the problem.
• Maintenance window for production - limits scope of change
• Step-wise changes are OK (big bang is not required)
• We can make trade-offs to defray expensive requirements
• Beyond Assumptions… Paradigm Shifts
• There are shared best practices
• Upgrades can be automated in a sharable way
http://www.theemailadmin.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/GFI229-hot-water-migration.jpg
All the nodes update to the latest code
in a short time window
• Details: 1. Cookbooks include update (instead of install) directives.
2. Control upstream package point (e.g. apt-update when appropriate)
3. Force chef-client run
4. Now at new level
• Considerations • Pros: Potentially fast, continuous operation
• Cons: Don't mess up, it is your production environment
• Scope: Security updates
• Code Assumptions:
• System can function through service restarts.
• Underlying data models don't change or migrate appropriately.
Nodes migrate in staged groups
• Details:
1. Choose subset of machines and quiesce them.
2. Update set
3. Freeze state (by tenant)
4. Migrate service/tenant content
5. Repurpose after complete.
• Considerations
• Pros: Safer, more controlled, and can move tenants as needed
• Cons: Takes longer, still has cut-over point, but less open
http://allgodscrittersgotrhythm.blogspot.com/2010_08_01_archive.html
Nodes changed individually by a system-wide
orchestration that supports components of multiple versions
• Details
1. Components must be able to straddle versions
2. Orchestration updates core components to new version
3. System as a whole queiseces and is validated (requires self test)
4. Orchestration individually migrates components (return to step 3)
• Considerations
• Pros: Creates a highly resilient system that handles higher rate of change
• Cons: More complex to create and maintain
http://www.grizzlycentral.com/forum/grizzly-tire-wheel-combos/1204-upgrade-tires-grizzly.html
• Orchestration (not just deployment automation)
• Awareness of physical layout is required
• Must respect fault zones to sustain HA
• Proximity of resources matters for migration
• Networking transitions are essential
• Collaboration with development teams is essential
• Components must support current and previous
• Upgrade plan must be baked into configuration and tested
• Upgrade dependencies must be 1) clear and 2) minimized
• HA complicates upgrades
• Upgrade can be detected as a failure
• HA system must be able to bridge versions
• Partial features were confusing
• We wanted to get ahead on upgrade
• It looked like dev jumped to Grizzly
• Good news:
• Some testing of upgrade
• Folsom to Grizzly ops was pretty smooth
• Bad news:
• Grizzly is more complex (more moving parts)
• Missing multi-node upgrade validation
DB DB
Msg Bus Msg Bus
Compute Compute
Client Client
Dashboard Dashboard Cinder Cinder
Quantum Quantum
Glance Glance
Keystone Keystone
Oslo Oslo
Celimeter Celimeter
Nova Nova
• Fault Tolerance on BOTH SIDES AND VERSIONS
• Same Version = EASY
• Backwards Version = HARD
• Forward Version = IMPOSSIBLE
Keystone
Havana Easy
Keystone
Grizzly
Nova
Havana
• We want to limit need to sustain old services
• New versions should support past APIs
• API consumers can migrate in steps
Ideally, we’d server AND client would be multi-version
Keystone
Havana
Step 3
Keystone
Grizzly
API
Nova
Havana
Nova
Grizzly
Ste
p 2
• Size Matters
• Big Steps = Release Based
• Small Steps = Commit Based
• Small steps are digest
• Easier to test small steps
• Incur less technical debt
• Expose issues to developers while code is fresh
• Large steps create risk
• More combinations to test
• More changes at one time
• Difficult to fix design issues
G H
Small Step vs Large
Serv
er
vs C
lient
Big Bang!
Continuous
Deploy
Staged
Upgrade
Rolling
Upgrade
Protocol
Stepping
Protocol
Driven
Parallel
Operation
Forced Client
Migration
Continuous
Deploy
Staged
Upgrade
Rolling
Upgrade
Protocol
Driven
Parallel
Operation
Forced Client
Migration
Protocol
Stepping
Big Bang!
Small Step vs Large
Serv
er
vs C
lient
Continuous
Deploy
Staged
Upgrade
Rolling
Upgrade
Protocol
Driven
Parallel
Operation
Forced Client
Migration
Protocol
Stepping
Big Bang!
Small Step vs Large
Serv
er
vs C
lient
• Servers & agents must be version tolerant
• Clients protocols must be testable and documented
• Ensure non-destructive migration
• Fast-fail on client, but version tolerant on server
• Require Expectation that servers will migrate need to be built into the system! Servers must be adopting latest protocols or clients will not follow.
• Servers must test legacy clients/protocols! We must have tests!
• We must be able to find and upgrade legacy clients
• Deployment Upstream Cookbooks/Modules
• Best Practice Discussions
• Code for Upgradeability
• Crowbar Collaboration
• Upgrade is a FEATURE!
• Orchestration + Chef
• Pull from Source Deployments
• System Discovery
• Networking Configuration
• Operating System Install
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2561/3891653055_262410bc31.jpg
Recommended