Containers vs serverless - Navigating application deployment options

1. © 2017 IBM Corporation l Interconnect 2017 Containers vs serverless Navigating application deployment options @DanielKrook Daniel Krook Software Architect, IBM Bare Metal VM VM VM Virtual machines Functions Containers

2. IBM Bluemix Containers vs Serverless@DanielKrook Cloud computing options in the post-VM world are overwhelming

3. IBM Bluemix Containers vs Serverless@DanielKrook But containerization is a given for cloud applications Enables greater density, faster startup, and more consistent application deployment. Eases 12 Factor application delivery, handles operational concerns (lifecycle, scale). Enables polyglot microservices architectures using the right language runtime for the job. JavaScript JavaScript JavaScript Swift Java

4. IBM Bluemix Containers vs Serverless@DanielKrook So which containerization approach will work best for you? Platform Orchestration Containers Serverless Cost Performance Maintenance Experience

6. IBM Bluemix Containers vs Serverless@DanielKrook Let’s look at three common container deployment models Full control over infrastructure and maximum portability Focus on the application and let the platform handle the rest Auto-scaled, event-driven applications that respond to a variety of triggers Containers-as-a-Service Platform-as-a-Service Functions-as-a-Service

7. IBM Bluemix Containers vs Serverless@DanielKrook Each containerization approach has its particular advantagesIncreasingfocusonbusinesslogic Decreasing concern (and control) over stack implementation Full control over infrastructure and maximum portability Focus on the application and let the platform handle the rest Auto-scaled, event-driven applications that respond to a variety of triggers Containers Applications Functions

8. IBM Bluemix Containers vs Serverless@DanielKrook Kubernetes on the IBM Bluemix Container Service Build and deploy portable applications with flexibility and control over configuration that run anywhere without the need to reconfigure and deploy for different environments. Beneﬁts Target audience • Native, managed Kubernetes experience. • Supports secure binding apps to Watson and other APIs. • Scans Docker images and live containers for vulnerabilities and malware. • Developers and teams who want control over how their application and all of its dependencies are packaged and versioned, ensuring portability and reuse across deployment platforms. • Developers looking for high performance among a cohesive set of interdependent, independently scaling microservices. • Organizations moving containers to the cloud and who are experienced with end- to-end cluster deployments. Containers-as-a-Service

9. IBM Bluemix Containers vs Serverless@DanielKrook Cloud Foundry through IBM Bluemix Instant Runtimes Deploy and scale applications using a broad set of runtimes, binding to a catalog of data, AI, IoT, security services, without having to manually configure and manage servers. • Complete, distributed, scalable, production grade Platform-as-a- Service framework. • Buildpacks and brokered services provide Cloud Foundry extensibility. • Developers who want a deployment platform that enables them to focus on application source code and ﬁles (not packaging them) and not worry about the OS. • Developers who are creating more traditional HTTP-based services (apps and APIs) with routable hostnames by default. • Organizations that are comfortable with a more stable model of cloud computing that has been around for a longer period of time (comprehensive docs, many samples). Beneﬁts Target audience Platform-as-a-Service

10. IBM Bluemix Containers vs Serverless@DanielKrook Apache OpenWhisk hosted on IBM Bluemix Execute code on-demand in an auto-scaled, managed environment through event- driven triggers. Write functions in JavaScript, Swift, Java, Python, or custom Docker images. Declare mappings to event sources. HTTP API gateway support built-it. • Platform to run short lived container instances with application code in response to speciﬁc events • Provides a scalable, polyglot, and extensible platform for integrating many event sources at granular cost • Developers who want to focus purely on business logic within individual functions that automatically scale in response to demand and closely tie transactions to cost. • Developers and teams creating non-HTTP applications, such as those that respond to database changes, IoT readings, asynchronous, non-performance critical tasks. • Organizations that are comfortable adopting cutting edge technology in an area where standards and best practices have not yet been thoroughly established. Beneﬁts Target audience Functions-as-a-Service

11. IBM Bluemix Containers vs Serverless@DanielKrook Serverless is a great ﬁt for non-HTTP workloads as well Execute logic in response to database change Perform analytics on sensor input messages Provide cognitive computing via chatbots Schedule tasks performed for a short time Invoke autoscaled APIs and mobile backends bit.ly/bx-sl-wl

13. IBM Bluemix Containers vs Serverless@DanielKrook Deploying a JavaScript application to each platform APPLICATION PUBLIC NETWORK CLOUD NETWORK FIBONACCI AS APP FIBONACCI AS CONTAINER OpenWhisk FIBONACCI AS ACTION app.js (or handler.js) lib/ﬁbonacci.js bit.ly/bx-mdo Sample app has 3 HTTP API endpoints - Compute Fibonacci number   after n iterations. - Run the computation for t milliseconds. - Simulate a crash of the service   by exiting the process.

14. IBM Bluemix Containers vs Serverless@DanielKrook Deploying the Fibonacci application to Kubernetes Clone the sample code curl http://169.48.137.10:30080/fibonacci?iteration=1000 curl http://169.48.137.10:30080/fibonacci?duration=5000 curl -X POST http://169.48.137.10:30080/fibonacci?crash=true Test against the public IP given git clone https://github.com/IBM-Bluemix/multiple-deployment-options cd services Build locally, and push to the IBM private container registry bx cr login bx cr namespace-create krook docker build -t registry.ng.bluemix.net/krook/fibonacci:latest . docker push registry.ng.bluemix.net/krook/fibonacci:latest Create a Kubernetes cluster with the new Container Service bx cs cluster-create --name oscon bx cs cluster-config oscon export KUBECONFIG=... Deploy the set of containers to that cluster vi fibonacci-deployment.yml (update namespace) kubectl create -f fibonacci-deployment.yml

15. IBM Bluemix Containers vs Serverless@DanielKrook Deploying the Fibonacci application to Cloud Foundry Clone the sample code curl http://fibonacci-service-oscon.mybluemix.net/fibonacci?iteration=1000 curl http://fibonacci-service-oscon.mybluemix.net/fibonacci?duration=5000 curl -X POST http://fibonacci-service-oscon.mybluemix.net/fibonacci?crash=true Test against the hostname git clone https://github.com/IBM-Bluemix/multiple-deployment-options cd services Update conﬁguration as needed, push the application to the cloud bx cf login vi manifest.yml (update hostname) bx cf push

16. IBM Bluemix Containers vs Serverless@DanielKrook Deploying the Fibonacci application to OpenWhisk Clone the sample code curl https://openwhisk.ng.bluemix.net/api/v1/web/.../default/fibonacci?iteration=1000 curl https://openwhisk.ng.bluemix.net/api/v1/web/.../default/fibonacci?duration=5000 curl -X POST https://openwhisk.ng.bluemix.net/api/v1/web/.../default/fibonacci?crash=true Test against the hostname git clone https://github.com/IBM-Bluemix/multiple-deployment-options cd services Update conﬁguration as needed, push the application to the cloud wsk property set --apihost openwhisk.ng.bluemix.net --auth xxxxxxx npm install node deploy.js --install (convenience script that wraps the wsk CLI)

17. IBM Bluemix Containers vs Serverless@DanielKrook Day two operations: It’s running! Now what?

18. IBM Bluemix Containers vs Serverless@DanielKrook Day two operations: With power comes responsibility Add more resilience by scaling each service bx cf scale fibonacci-service-oscon -i 3 kubectl scale --replicas=3 -f fibonacci-deployment.yml Conﬁrm new instances have been created in Cloud Foundry bx cf apps name requested state instances memory disk urls fibonacci-service-oscon started 3/3 256M 1G … Conﬁrm new instances have been created in Kubernetes kubectl get pods NAME READY STATUS RESTARTS AGE fibonacci-deployment-838971134-44cxv 1/1 Running 0 21s fibonacci-deployment-838971134-k3cn3 1/1 Running 0 21s fibonacci-deployment-838971134-l3rkh 1/1 Running 2 4d

19. IBM Bluemix Containers vs Serverless@DanielKrook Day two operations: Better!

21. IBM Bluemix Containers vs Serverless@DanielKrook Considerations for selecting a containerization platform • Control over runtime environment (runtimes, versions, minimal OS). • Greater reusability and portability of container images. • Great fit for bringing containerized apps and systems to the cloud. • No need to manage underlying OS. • Buildpacks provide influence over the runtime, giving as much or as little control (sensible defaults) as desired. • Great fit for many existing web apps with a stable programming model. • OS, runtime, and even container lifecycle is completely abstracted (serverless). • Autoscales in response to demand, with an associated granular cost model. • Great fit for emerging, non-HTTP, event-driven workloads involving IoT, data, messages. • More responsibility over package configuration (security patches). • Need to understand distributed systems. • Loss of control over operating system,   possibly at the mercy of buildpack versions. • Limited to HTTP/HTTPS • An emerging computing model, rapid innovation with less comprehensive and stable documentation, samples, tools, and best practices. Full control over infrastructure and maximum portability Focus on the application and let the platform handle the rest Auto-scaled, event-driven applications that respond to a variety of triggers Containers-as-a-Service Platform-as-a-Service Functions-as-a-Service

22. IBM Bluemix Containers vs Serverless@DanielKrook Performing your own in depth assessment of each platform Score that against the cost for the services. It's not always about compute, particularly in a highly distributed serverless solution. How much does this service cost? Am I assuming certain features are built-in? How much will dependent services cost? Is latency between services an issue? Experiment with each approach. Find what works best for your app from a functionality and development experience. What if I need to change the code of my service? How do I ensure continuity of service while I deploy the update? How much control do I really need over the runtime? Gather performance numbers such as time to recovery with Kubernetes and Cloud Foundry as well as cold starts with OpenWhisk. Explore other non-functional characteristics. How do I secure my service? How do I make my application resilient to a data-center failure? What if my service fails? Will the platform automatically recover? Will it be transparent to end- users? Evaluate features Measure operations Consider integrations

23. IBM Bluemix Containers vs Serverless@DanielKrook Some considerations for running on more than one platform Split components of your application across deployment targets Think about matching the right technology to the right job, for example I have an IoT demo that uses both a Cloud Foundry application and a set of OpenWhisk actions. Serverless isn't a magic bullet, but a new option to consider. Design your application for more than one deployment target Another design choice is to make your code as generic as it can be, allow it to be tested locally, and rely on environment variables to inﬂuence how it runs in particular environments. The FlightAssist app shows this. Continue to use your existing DevOps pipelines for any of the approaches Kubernetes, Cloud Foundry, and OpenWhisk can all be driven by command line tools, and the same Docker image can potentially be reused across platforms. Consider abstractions, such as the Serverless Framework, for JavaScript applications Or perhaps one of the other options like Zappa or Lambada that help port existing Python WSGi and JAX-RS REST API applications from traditional hosting to a serverless platform (still exploring ports to OpenWhisk).

25. IBM Bluemix Containers vs Serverless@DanielKrook Deploy the sample app to all three services on Bluemix github.com/IBM-Bluemix/multiple-deployment-options (bit.ly/bx-mdo) Learn about FlightAssist, a more in-depth study with data services github.com/estesp/ﬂightassist See more Kubernetes, Cloud Foundry, and OpenWhisk samples on GitHub github.com/IBM Prefer to work hands-on with a developer advocate? developer.ibm.com/code/work-with-us Get started evaluating each option for your application

26. IBM Bluemix Containers vs Serverless@DanielKrook Learn about serverless with Apache OpenWhisk at OSCON

28. IBM Bluemix Containers vs Serverless@DanielKrook Kubernetes on the IBM Bluemix Container Service 1. Use the bx command line (with cs and cr subcommands) or Bluemix GUI to manage clusters, images, and containers. 2. Push your Docker images to your private Bluemix registry. 3. Deploy containers to the cluster, and make your app accessible from the Internet. 4. Bind a Bluemix service to your pods to bring extra capability to your containers. 5. Monitor the health of your cluster and apps on Bluemix

29. IBM Bluemix Containers vs Serverless@DanielKrook Cloud Foundry through IBM Bluemix Instant Runtimes 1. Choose the cf command line or Bluemix GUI to manage your web apps. 2. Create your web app by using Bluemix user interface or the bx cf command line. 3. Edit and version your code in Bluemix DevOps or local development environment. 5. Bind app services by using Bluemix user interface or the cf command line. 6. Provision monitoring services to manage the health of your applications.

30. IBM Bluemix Containers vs Serverless@DanielKrook Apache OpenWhisk hosted on IBM Bluemix 1. Choose the wsk command line or Bluemix GUI to create your actions (functions). 2. Choose the wsk command line or Bluemix GUI to create your event triggers. 3. Choose the wsk command line or Bluemix GUI to map triggers to actions. 4. Choose the wsk command line or Bluemix GUI to monitor action invocations.

Containers vs serverless - Navigating application deployment options

Vous êtes en train de lire un aperçu.

Consultez-les par la suite

Containers vs serverless - Navigating application deployment options

Plus De Contenu Connexe

Diaporamas pour vous (20)

Similaire à Containers vs serverless - Navigating application deployment options (20)

Plus par Daniel Krook (20)

Plus récents (20)