Skip to main content

Standardizing infra - lxd is not Docker

LXD logo from Ubuntu blog
Selling a software package that is deployed to a customer data-centre can be challenging due to the diversity found in the physical infrastructure.

It is expensive to make (and test) adjustments to the software that allow it to run in a non-standard manner.

Maintaining a swarm of snowflakes is not a scalable business practice. More deployment variations means more documentation and more pairs of hands needed to manage them. Uniformity and automation are what keep our prices competitive.

Opposing the engineering team's desire for uniformity is the practical need to fit our solution into the customers data-centre and budget. We can't define a uniform physical infrastructure that all of our customers must adhere to. Well, I suppose we could, but we would only have a very small number of customers who are willing and able to fit their data-centre around us.

We are therefore on the horns of a dilemma. Specifying standard physical hardware is impractical and limits the sales team. Allowing the sales team to adjust the infrastructure means that we have to tailor our platform to each deployment.

Virtualization is the rational response to this dilemma. We can have a standard virtualized infrastructure and work with the sales team and the customer to make sure that the hardware is able to support this. This way we'll know that our software is always deployed on the same platform.

LXD is a hypervisor for containers and is an expansion of LXC, the Linux container technology behind Docker. It's described by Stéphane Graber, an Ubuntu project engineer,as a "daemon exporting an authenticated representational state transfer application programming interface (REST API) both locally over a unix socket and over the network using https. There are then two clients for this daemon, one is an OpenStack plugin, the other a standalone command line tool."

It's not a replacement for Docker, even though Linux kernel provided containers are at the root of both technologies. So what is LXD for? An LXD container is an alternative to a virtual machine running in a traditional hypervisor.

With virtualization (or LXD containerization), if your customer has limited rack-space or a limited budget you can still sell your software based on a standard platform. You can take what metal is available and install LXD containers to partitition the resources up into separated "machines".

If you like, you can use Docker to manage the deployment of your software into these LXD containers. Docker and LXD are complementary!

In practical terms you can use tools like Ansible to automate the provisioning of your LXD containers on the customers metal. You are able to define in code the infrastructure and platform that your software runs on. And that means your engineering team wins at automation and your sales team wins at fitting the software into the customer data-centre.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Using Fail2Ban to protect a Varnished site from scrapers

I'm using Varnish to cache a fairly busy property site.  Varnish works like a bomb for normal users and has greatly improved our page load speed. For bots that are scraping the site, presumably to add the property listings to their own site, though the cache is next to useless since the bots are sequentially trawling through the whole site. I decided to use fail2ban to block IP's who hit the site too often. The first step in doing so was to enable a disk based access log for Varnish so that fail2ban will have something to work with. This means setting up varnishncsa.  Add this to your /etc/rc.local file: varnishncsa -a -w /var/log/varnish/access.log -D -P /var/run/varnishncsa.pid This starts up varnishncsa in daemon mode and appends Varnish access attempts to /var/log/varnish/access.log Now edit or create /etc/logrotate.d/varnish and make an entry to rotate this access log: /var/log/varnish/*log { create 640 http log compress ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Translating a bit of the idea behind domain driven design into code architecture

I've often participated in arguments discussions about whether thin models or thin controllers should be preferred.  The wisdom of a thin controller is that if you need to test your controller in isolation then you need to stub the dependencies of your request and response. It also violates the single responsibility principal because the controller could have multiple reasons to change.   Seemingly, the alternative is to settle on having fat models. This results in having domain logic right next to your persistence logic. If you ever want to change your persistence layer you're going to be in for a painful time. That's a bit of a cargo cult argument because honestly who does that, but it's also a violation of the single responsibility principal.   One way to decouple your domain logic from both persistence and controller is to use the "repository pattern".   Here we encapsulate domain logic into a data service. This layer deals exclusively with imple...
Post a Comment
Read more

Separating business logic from persistence layer in Laravel

There are several reasons to separate business logic from your persistence layer.  Perhaps the biggest advantage is that the parts of your application which are unique are not coupled to how data are persisted.  This makes the code easier to port and maintain. I'm going to use Doctrine to replace the Eloquent ORM in Laravel.  A thorough comparison of the patterns is available  here . By using Doctrine I am also hoping to mitigate the risk of a major version upgrade on the underlying framework.  It can be expected for the ORM to change between major versions of a framework and upgrading to a new release can be quite costly. Another advantage to this approach is to limit the access that objects have to the database.  Unless a developer is aware of the business rules in place on an Eloquent model there is a chance they will mistakenly ignore them by calling the ActiveRecord save method directly. I'm not implementing the repository pattern in all its ...
Post a Comment
Read more