Обсуждение: Postgresql + containerization possible use case
Hi we are running some 140 remote servers (in the 7 seas via satellite connections), and in each one of them we run: - jboss - postgresql - uucp (not as a daemon) - gpsd - samba - and possibly some other services Hardware and software upgrades are very hard since there is no physical access to those servers by trained personnel, andalso there is a diversity of software versions. The idea for future upgrades is to containerize certain aspects of the software. The questions are (I am not skilled in docker,only minimal contact with lxd) : - is this a valid use case for containerization? - are there any gotchas around postgersql, the reliability of the system ? - since we are talking about 4+ basic services (pgsqk, jboss, uucp, samba), is docker a good fit or should we be lookinginto lxd as well? - are there any success stories of other after following a similar path? Thank you! PS For those who wonder about UUCP, UUCP was our comms solution prior we installed TCP/IP on the vessels. However, to this day,it provides a nice management layer, a sort of protection before data leave the vessel or reach the vessel, in a user controlled manner. So uucp stayed as it matched exactly the business as far datatransfers and emails are concerned. It would be hard to uniformly manage data transfers and emails in/out in a plain TCP/IP setup (rsync, ftp, etc, sendmail/exim4/postfix or other MTA). -- Achilleas Mantzios DBA, Analyst, IT Lead IT DEPT Dynacom Tankers Mgmt
On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 3:24 AM Achilleas Mantzios <achill@matrix.gatewaynet.com> wrote:
Hi
we are running some 140 remote servers (in the 7 seas via satellite connections), and in each one of them we run:
- jboss
- postgresql
- uucp (not as a daemon)
- gpsd
- samba
- and possibly some other services
Hardware and software upgrades are very hard since there is no physical access to those servers by trained personnel, and also there is a diversity of software versions.
The idea for future upgrades is to containerize certain aspects of the software. The questions are (I am not skilled in docker, only minimal contact with lxd) :
- is this a valid use case for containerization?
- are there any gotchas around postgersql, the reliability of the system ?
- since we are talking about 4+ basic services (pgsqk, jboss, uucp, samba), is docker a good fit or should we be looking into lxd as well?
- are there any success stories of other after following a similar path?
My experience with LXD is that upon install you are now on a regular update plan that is impossible to change.
This means that your very expensive data connection will be preempted for updates at the whim of the
canonical crew. Suggest not using such (most using such on wireless connections seem to have found
the resultant issues less than wonderful - - cost (on the data connection) being #1 and the inability to achieve
solid reliability crowding it for #2).
IMO HTH
On 10/12/21 1:24 μ.μ., o1bigtenor wrote:
ThanksOn Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 3:24 AM Achilleas Mantzios <achill@matrix.gatewaynet.com> wrote:Hi
we are running some 140 remote servers (in the 7 seas via satellite connections), and in each one of them we run:
- jboss
- postgresql
- uucp (not as a daemon)
- gpsd
- samba
- and possibly some other services
Hardware and software upgrades are very hard since there is no physical access to those servers by trained personnel, and also there is a diversity of software versions.
The idea for future upgrades is to containerize certain aspects of the software. The questions are (I am not skilled in docker, only minimal contact with lxd) :
- is this a valid use case for containerization?
- are there any gotchas around postgersql, the reliability of the system ?
- since we are talking about 4+ basic services (pgsqk, jboss, uucp, samba), is docker a good fit or should we be looking into lxd as well?
- are there any success stories of other after following a similar path?
Ehhmmm we are running some old versions there already (jboss, pgsql), LXD would not differ in this regard.My experience with LXD is that upon install you are now on a regular update plan that is impossible to change.
What do you mean? that the updates for LXD are huge? short spaced/very regular?
Can you pls elaborate some more on that?
Crew has their own paid service. Business connection is for business not crew.This means that your very expensive data connection will be preempted for updates at the whim of thecanonical crew. Suggest not using such (most using such on wireless connections seem to have foundthe resultant issues less than wonderful - - cost (on the data connection) being #1 and the inability to achievesolid reliability crowding it for #2).
What I am interested is, could docker be of any use in the above scenario? Containerization in general?
The guys (admins/mgmt) here seem to be dead set on docker, but I have to guarantee some basic data safety requirements.
IMO HTH
-- Achilleas Mantzios DBA, Analyst, IT Lead IT DEPT Dynacom Tankers Mgmt
On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 6:02 AM Achilleas Mantzios <achill@matrix.gatewaynet.com> wrote:
On 10/12/21 1:24 μ.μ., o1bigtenor wrote:ThanksOn Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 3:24 AM Achilleas Mantzios <achill@matrix.gatewaynet.com> wrote:Hi
we are running some 140 remote servers (in the 7 seas via satellite connections), and in each one of them we run:
- jboss
- postgresql
- uucp (not as a daemon)
- gpsd
- samba
- and possibly some other services
Hardware and software upgrades are very hard since there is no physical access to those servers by trained personnel, and also there is a diversity of software versions.
The idea for future upgrades is to containerize certain aspects of the software. The questions are (I am not skilled in docker, only minimal contact with lxd) :
- is this a valid use case for containerization?
- are there any gotchas around postgersql, the reliability of the system ?
- since we are talking about 4+ basic services (pgsqk, jboss, uucp, samba), is docker a good fit or should we be looking into lxd as well?
- are there any success stories of other after following a similar path?Ehhmmm we are running some old versions there already (jboss, pgsql), LXD would not differ in this regard.My experience with LXD is that upon install you are now on a regular update plan that is impossible to change.
What do you mean? that the updates for LXD are huge? short spaced/very regular?
Can you pls elaborate some more on that?
Updates seem to happen very very regularly.
That means that the system is often tied up with the updating - - - NOT on doing the function(s).
If there are any issues with the newest and bestest version - - - - well you get to deal with not
only a hung system (happened a few times whilst I was trying this out (over a longer period of
time as well)) but a system that isn't doing what you want it to be doing.
I chose to space the updates out to once a month - - - then followed senior dev team
suggestions to control that and achieved a system that would not update anything. To make
things even more interesting it was not possible to even remove snapd and LXD. I was using
rm -r carefully and there was some error message that I no longer remember. End result was
that I had to blow the system away and reinstall. I'm not a fan of doing this nor a need to do
such to remove any program I choose to remove. My experiences told me that the idea behind
this central management (ubuntu controlled updating and upgrading) was most likely designed
to facilitate a paid serviced from Canonical which income from would cause a very nice spike
in value to Canonical benefiting only a very tiny number of hands. The dev team at LXD was
almost shrill in its defense of the 'we know best' thinking that this behavior depicted. Somehow
running bleeding edge hasn't ever given me reliability. When it comes to business - - - well I
want things to work - - - I'm not a programmer geek who is forever trying to 'improve' something.
My existence is not validated by the umpteen hundred versions of my software available out
there. My existence is better validated by what I can get done - - - - and not necessarily what
someone else says I have to do right now (even in the middle of the night!!!).
Does that help?
Crew has their own paid service. Business connection is for business not crew.This means that your very expensive data connection will be preempted for updates at the whim of thecanonical crew. Suggest not using such (most using such on wireless connections seem to have foundthe resultant issues less than wonderful - - cost (on the data connection) being #1 and the inability to achievesolid reliability crowding it for #2).
What I am interested is, could docker be of any use in the above scenario? Containerization in general?
Know nothing about Docker and as a result of my foray into containerization - - - - well - - - - I'm not a
fan at present. Much more likely to do something like set up a RaspberryPi and then use that to do things
and if more is needed well - - - I'm considering micro-controllers linked into SoCs (not necessarily RaspberryPi
but similar) and then possible one central perhaps full size server - - - but then that server would be busy.
I also am using test systems for any level of system so I'm experimenting on testing systems and things
don't move to the 'real work horses' until I'm happy that things are stable and do what I want them to do.
Doesn't necessarily make for cheap but it has upped reliability and reduced stress (when a primary use
system gets borked - - - whatever the reason - - - - life isn't fun until its fixed - - - right?).
The guys (admins/mgmt) here seem to be dead set on docker, but I have to guarantee some basic data safety requirements.
The 'book' says everything is wonderful - - - - if it were me - - - no guarantees until 'I' am sure.
If they want it - - - - and want you to guarantee it - - - - I wouldn't touch it myself!! (That's my opinion and
worth all of what you paid for it. I have pile of software installed on my main use system - - - I'm looking
for good stuff that works and far too much stuff in the programming world is hype and not function!!)
Regards
On 12/10/21 01:24, Achilleas Mantzios wrote: > Hi > > The idea for future upgrades is to containerize certain aspects of the > software. The questions are (I am not skilled in docker, only minimal > contact with lxd) : > - is this a valid use case for containerization? > - are there any gotchas around postgersql, the reliability of the system ? > - since we are talking about 4+ basic services (pgsqk, jboss, uucp, > samba), is docker a good fit or should we be looking into lxd as well? > - are there any success stories of other after following a similar path? My question is what is it going to change? The software in the containers still need to be maintained/upgraded and now you have added maintenance and management of the container software and communication between containers. > > Thank you! > > PS > > For those who wonder about UUCP, UUCP was our comms solution prior we > installed TCP/IP on the vessels. However, to this day, it provides a > nice management layer, a sort of protection before data leave the vessel > or reach the vessel, in a user controlled manner. So uucp stayed as it > matched exactly the business as far data transfers and emails are > concerned. It would be hard to uniformly manage data transfers and > emails in/out in a plain TCP/IP setup (rsync, ftp, etc, > sendmail/exim4/postfix or other MTA). > -- Adrian Klaver adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
On Fri, Dec 10, 2021, 2:24 AM Achilleas Mantzios <achill@matrix.gatewaynet.com> wrote:
Hi
we are running some 140 remote servers (in the 7 seas via satellite connections)
How are they used? What is in Postgres? Should that all have the exact same read only data at all times?
On 12/10/21 12:06, Michael Lewis wrote: > On Fri, Dec 10, 2021, 2:24 AM Achilleas Mantzios > <achill@matrix.gatewaynet.com <mailto:achill@matrix.gatewaynet.com>> wrote: > > Hi > we are running some 140 remote servers (in the 7 seas via satellite > connections) > > > How are they used? What is in Postgres? Should that all have the exact > same read only data at all times? > A previous explanation from Achilleas Mantzios , not sure if this is still exactly how it works: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3124961.tmAbAIay6W%40smadev.internal.net -- Adrian Klaver adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
Interesting. I'm not sure that moving an image for a VM with Postgres is compatible with the goal of minimizing time/data but if upgrades are yearly or something, perhaps that is reasonable. It has been 9+ years since that post as well. But the full data will need to be included in the image if the goal is not requiring any (significant) tech support at each location, right? Unless the data that needs to be stored at each site is small, that seems a bit unlikely to be a feasible option.
On 10/12/21 4:02 μ.μ., o1bigtenor wrote:
Thanks, this is more than true.The 'book' says everything is wonderful - - - - if it were me - - - no guarantees until 'I' am sure.If they want it - - - - and want you to guarantee it - - - - I wouldn't touch it myself!! (That's my opinion andworth all of what you paid for it. I have pile of software installed on my main use system - - - I'm lookingfor good stuff that works and far too much stuff in the programming world is hype and not function!!)
Regards
-- Achilleas Mantzios DBA, Analyst, IT Lead IT DEPT Dynacom Tankers Mgmt
Hi Adrian On 10/12/21 6:01 μ.μ., Adrian Klaver wrote: > On 12/10/21 01:24, Achilleas Mantzios wrote: >> Hi > >> >> The idea for future upgrades is to containerize certain aspects of the software. The questions are (I am not skilled indocker, only minimal contact with lxd) : >> - is this a valid use case for containerization? >> - are there any gotchas around postgersql, the reliability of the system ? >> - since we are talking about 4+ basic services (pgsqk, jboss, uucp, samba), is docker a good fit or should we be lookinginto lxd as well? >> - are there any success stories of other after following a similar path? > > My question is what is it going to change? The software in the containers still need to be maintained/upgraded and nowyou have added maintenance and management of the container software and > communication between containers. > I think the rationale is that sysadms may upgrade system and kernel without caring about breaking things, the docker imagesof the respective services (jboss, pgsql, exim4, etc..) will evolve (more) independently. >> >> Thank you! >> >> PS >> >> For those who wonder about UUCP, UUCP was our comms solution prior we installed TCP/IP on the vessels. However, to thisday, it provides a nice management layer, a sort of protection before data >> leave the vessel or reach the vessel, in a user controlled manner. So uucp stayed as it matched exactly the business asfar data transfers and emails are concerned. It would be hard to uniformly >> manage data transfers and emails in/out in a plain TCP/IP setup (rsync, ftp, etc, sendmail/exim4/postfix or other MTA). >> > > -- Achilleas Mantzios DBA, Analyst, IT Lead IT DEPT Dynacom Tankers Mgmt
Hi Michael, Adrian On 10/12/21 11:28 μ.μ., Adrian Klaver wrote: > On 12/10/21 12:06, Michael Lewis wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 10, 2021, 2:24 AM Achilleas Mantzios <achill@matrix.gatewaynet.com <mailto:achill@matrix.gatewaynet.com>>wrote: >> >> Hi >> we are running some 140 remote servers (in the 7 seas via satellite >> connections) >> >> >> How are they used? What is in Postgres? Should that all have the exact same read only data at all times? >> > > A previous explanation from Achilleas Mantzios , not sure if this is still exactly how it works: > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3124961.tmAbAIay6W%40smadev.internal.net Thank you Adrian, the situation is the similar with the one you posted above (in 2012), albeit sizes/number of remote servershas increased. In order to respond to Michael, Remote pgsql servers are masters. A large majority of tables is read-only (by software, not enforced by other means), butthose servers they have their very important write functions as well. And the data are individual for any of those 100+ servers. There are no two identical DBs in the whole topology. Every server hasits own data specific for this vessel. > > > -- Achilleas Mantzios DBA, Analyst, IT Lead IT DEPT Dynacom Tankers Mgmt
On 11/12/21 6:31 μ.μ., Michael Lewis wrote: > Interesting. I'm not sure that moving an image for a VM with Postgres is compatible with the goal of minimizing time/databut if upgrades are yearly or something, perhaps that is reasonable. It has > been 9+ years since that post as well. But the full data will need to be included in the image if the goal is not requiringany (significant) tech support at each location, right? Unless the data > that needs to be stored at each site is small, that seems a bit unlikely to be a feasible option. The data are independent, read-write, and different for each server. Basically they (sysadm ppl) want to facilitate system/kernelupgrades, which is a must as old hardware is harder to support with newest kernel versions. Their idea is for exim4, pgsql, jboss to reside in separate docker images. However I asked for a detailed description of the problem, in order to focus more formally on the problem. I know docker and postgresql has been a hot topic for quite some time. First presentations said ... dont do it, but latelywe see more and more positive experiences, articles, success stories. Pgsql major versions and data go hand in hand, I hate to give them the illusion that separating postgresql from data is somethingto consider. Serious thought is needed, for sure, I am just thinking that dockerizing exim4, jboss, and other services might be a valididea, while still keeping postgresql and data on the host ? I had so much troubles because of unreliable system setup in the past, that I'd hate to repeat the same (or similar) mistakesagain. -- Achilleas Mantzios DBA, Analyst, IT Lead IT DEPT Dynacom Tankers Mgmt
Am 10.12.2021 um 13:01 schrieb Achilleas Mantzios <achill@matrix.gatewaynet.com>:On 10/12/21 1:24 μ.μ., o1bigtenor wrote:ThanksOn Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 3:24 AM Achilleas Mantzios <achill@matrix.gatewaynet.com> wrote:Hi
we are running some 140 remote servers (in the 7 seas via satellite connections), and in each one of them we run:
- jboss
- postgresql
- uucp (not as a daemon)
- gpsd
- samba
- and possibly some other services
Hardware and software upgrades are very hard since there is no physical access to those servers by trained personnel, and also there is a diversity of software versions.
The idea for future upgrades is to containerize certain aspects of the software. The questions are (I am not skilled in docker, only minimal contact with lxd) :
- is this a valid use case for containerization?
- are there any gotchas around postgersql, the reliability of the system ?
- since we are talking about 4+ basic services (pgsqk, jboss, uucp, samba), is docker a good fit or should we be looking into lxd as well?
- are there any success stories of other after following a similar path?Ehhmmm we are running some old versions there already (jboss, pgsql), LXD would not differ in this regard.My experience with LXD is that upon install you are now on a regular update plan that is impossible to change.
What do you mean? that the updates for LXD are huge? short spaced/very regular?
Can you pls elaborate some more on that?
IIRC, you can’t really control, which updates are installed for LXD (and snap). You can’t create a local mirror.
IIRC, you can delay snap updates, but you can’t really reject them.
Maybe you can these days, with landscape server?
(insert the usual rant about Enterprise != Ubuntu here)
I don’t know about LXD, but as it’s only running on Ubuntu and is apparently developed by a single guy (who might or might not work for Canonical - sorry, too lazy to check), I wouldn’t hold my breath as to its long-term viability.
Ubuntu will probably morph into a container-only, cloud-only OS sooner than later - the writing is on the wall (IMHO).
Crew has their own paid service. Business connection is for business not crew.This means that your very expensive data connection will be preempted for updates at the whim of thecanonical crew. Suggest not using such (most using such on wireless connections seem to have foundthe resultant issues less than wonderful - - cost (on the data connection) being #1 and the inability to achievesolid reliability crowding it for #2).
The word „crew“ was meant to say „employees of Canonical“ - I’m sure the allegory was not meant to mess with you...
What I am interested is, could docker be of any use in the above scenario? Containerization in general?
The guys (admins/mgmt) here seem to be dead set on docker, but I have to guarantee some basic data safety requirements.
I know very little about docker, but IMO, for ultimate stability, you could switch to RHEL and use their certified images:
My coworker says, he re-packages all his docker-images himself (with RPMs from his own mirror), so that he understands what’s really in them.
The big problem that I see with your use-case and docker is that docker implies frequent, small updates to the whole stack - including docker itself (unless you pay for the LTS version).
This is not what you do right now, I reckon?
The question is: do you want to get there?
But maybe your developers want to get here, because they don’t want to learn about software-packaging (anymore) - but is that what the business wants?
(That was pre-pandemic…)
I would make an educated guess that you’d need to have the whole docker-infrastructure on each ship (build-server, repository etc.pp.) to minimize sat-com traffic.
I mean, it looks like it could be done. But this is where the „dev“ part in the „devops" world has to take a step back and the „ops“ guys need to come forward.
Rainer
Hi Rainer,
On 13/12/21 11:50 π.μ., Rainer Duffner wrote:
On 13/12/21 11:50 π.μ., Rainer Duffner wrote:
All notes taken, thank you.Am 10.12.2021 um 13:01 schrieb Achilleas Mantzios <achill@matrix.gatewaynet.com>:On 10/12/21 1:24 μ.μ., o1bigtenor wrote:ThanksOn Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 3:24 AM Achilleas Mantzios <achill@matrix.gatewaynet.com> wrote:Hi
we are running some 140 remote servers (in the 7 seas via satellite connections), and in each one of them we run:
- jboss
- postgresql
- uucp (not as a daemon)
- gpsd
- samba
- and possibly some other services
Hardware and software upgrades are very hard since there is no physical access to those servers by trained personnel, and also there is a diversity of software versions.
The idea for future upgrades is to containerize certain aspects of the software. The questions are (I am not skilled in docker, only minimal contact with lxd) :
- is this a valid use case for containerization?
- are there any gotchas around postgersql, the reliability of the system ?
- since we are talking about 4+ basic services (pgsqk, jboss, uucp, samba), is docker a good fit or should we be looking into lxd as well?
- are there any success stories of other after following a similar path?Ehhmmm we are running some old versions there already (jboss, pgsql), LXD would not differ in this regard.My experience with LXD is that upon install you are now on a regular update plan that is impossible to change.
What do you mean? that the updates for LXD are huge? short spaced/very regular?
Can you pls elaborate some more on that?IIRC, you can’t really control, which updates are installed for LXD (and snap). You can’t create a local mirror.IIRC, you can delay snap updates, but you can’t really reject them.Maybe you can these days, with landscape server?(insert the usual rant about Enterprise != Ubuntu here)I don’t know about LXD, but as it’s only running on Ubuntu and is apparently developed by a single guy (who might or might not work for Canonical - sorry, too lazy to check), I wouldn’t hold my breath as to its long-term viability.Ubuntu will probably morph into a container-only, cloud-only OS sooner than later - the writing is on the wall (IMHO).
Crew has their own paid service. Business connection is for business not crew.This means that your very expensive data connection will be preempted for updates at the whim of thecanonical crew. Suggest not using such (most using such on wireless connections seem to have foundthe resultant issues less than wonderful - - cost (on the data connection) being #1 and the inability to achievesolid reliability crowding it for #2).The word „crew“ was meant to say „employees of Canonical“ - I’m sure the allegory was not meant to mess with you...What I am interested is, could docker be of any use in the above scenario? Containerization in general?
The guys (admins/mgmt) here seem to be dead set on docker, but I have to guarantee some basic data safety requirements.I know very little about docker, but IMO, for ultimate stability, you could switch to RHEL and use their certified images:My coworker says, he re-packages all his docker-images himself (with RPMs from his own mirror), so that he understands what’s really in them.The big problem that I see with your use-case and docker is that docker implies frequent, small updates to the whole stack - including docker itself (unless you pay for the LTS version).This is not what you do right now, I reckon?
Our setup has been open source since forever. So licenses for something that used to be free for ages would be hard to introduce.
So Docker is NOT free? Please share your thoughts? I am a complete noob.
Those servers I am talking about have no internet connectivity. And the satellite connection costs are high.
(although I think we pay a fixed amount for a certain total data transfer size).
Those servers live for years, the objective is to facilitate upgrades.The question is: do you want to get there?But maybe your developers want to get here, because they don’t want to learn about software-packaging (anymore) - but is that what the business wants?
Thanks for the link, I didn't quite understand what they do with docker (video included).
120 docker containers in two data centers on the ship? Ours will be just a single linux box with limited connectivity (in some seas no connectivity ) to the internet/shore.
(That was pre-pandemic…)I would make an educated guess that you’d need to have the whole docker-infrastructure on each ship (build-server, repository etc.pp.) to minimize sat-com traffic.
Hmm, I don't know about that. The hardware is given (existing) and limited.
You are like the 2nd person who warned about comms as being an issue with docker/containers.
Can't someone have a free docker system inside a linux server and run the containers (free again) until he/she decides to upgrade either docker or (more frequently) one of the images?
Is Docker upwards compatible? Meaning new Docker versions to run old images ?
Can you please explain in more detail?I mean, it looks like it could be done. But this is where the „dev“ part in the „devops" world has to take a step back and the „ops“ guys need to come forward.
Rainer
-- Achilleas Mantzios DBA, Analyst, IT Lead IT DEPT Dynacom Tankers Mgmt
Am 13.12.2021 um 12:41 schrieb Achilleas Mantzios <achill@matrix.gatewaynet.com>:Our setup has been open source since forever. So licenses for something that used to be free for ages would be hard to introduce.
That ist totally understandable.
140x800 for the RHEL license alone is over 100k/year.
Though you might get a volume discount at that point ;-)
So Docker is NOT free? Please share your thoughts? I am a complete noob.
The commercial version is not free.
The „CE“ version is free, but I’m not sure how stable the API is.
Dockerhub, for what it’s worth, isn’t completely free anymore either.
Those servers I am talking about have no internet connectivity. And the satellite connection costs are high.
(although I think we pay a fixed amount for a certain total data transfer size).
Yes. That’s why using a more offline-friendly infrastructure might make more sense.
RHEL seems to be pretty well tuned running in high-secure air-gapped networks - which is what a ship basically is.
Those servers live for years, the objective is to facilitate upgrades.The question is: do you want to get there?But maybe your developers want to get here, because they don’t want to learn about software-packaging (anymore) - but is that what the business wants?
Yes, but docker-upgrades aren’t free either.
At least, I cannot imagine running such an infrastructure in the gung-ho style that a typical developer runs his docker-containers.
You’d want to run a tight ship with those ;-)
You will need a lot more tooling around this (continuous integration, continuous deployment) - which is the reason I suggested moving all this infrastructure to the ship itself. If you produce and mirror the artifacts locally, you should have less backhaul traffic (which is what I assume is killing you with sat-com - downstream can probably be had cheap-ish these days - or pretty soon via the likes of StarLink)
Thanks for the link, I didn't quite understand what they do with docker (video included).
It’s passenger entertainment and engagement, from what I can see.
It’s sad and funny to read, as shortly after that huge cruises got out of fashion ;-)
It’s also not mission-critical.
120 docker containers in two data centers on the ship? Ours will be just a single linux box with limited connectivity (in some seas no connectivity ) to the internet/shore.
Yes, and this is IMO where you will have to get management on board to upgrade infrastructure and tooling around docker containers (and likely Kubernetes) - if your developers persist on using it that way.
You will end up running a small server-cluster on each ship - I would guess there are specialized vendors who produce sea-worthy server-equipment.
(That was pre-pandemic…)I would make an educated guess that you’d need to have the whole docker-infrastructure on each ship (build-server, repository etc.pp.) to minimize sat-com traffic.
Hmm, I don't know about that. The hardware is given (existing) and limited.
You are like the 2nd person who warned about comms as being an issue with docker/containers.
Can't someone have a free docker system inside a linux server and run the containers (free again) until he/she decides to upgrade either docker or (more frequently) one of the images?
Is Docker upwards compatible? Meaning new Docker versions to run old images ?
Yes, likely. But upgrading docker itself sometimes comes with its own challenges.
As you said, all these servers are with limited connectivity and no local help available...
Again, I’m the last person you want to ask how docker actually works (but often, the developers themselves don’t know either, but they know which commands to feed it…)
Also, most of my knowledge of ships is from watching NCIS (and reading Clive Cussler novels...).
Can you please explain in more detail?I mean, it looks like it could be done. But this is where the „dev“ part in the „devops" world has to take a step back and the „ops“ guys need to come forward.
With 140-ish servers air-gapped on vessels around the world, this is IMO a serious operations-problem and needs to be handled properly, with an air-tight (or water-tight…) operational concept.
Your infrastructure has outgrown its original design limits. Time to talk to management about upping the game (and the budget).
Best Regards
On 12/13/21 03:41, Achilleas Mantzios wrote: > Hi Rainer, > > On 13/12/21 11:50 π.μ., Rainer Duffner wrote: > So Docker is NOT free? Please share your thoughts? I am a complete noob. Take a look here: https://www.docker.com/pricing > Achilleas Mantzios > DBA, Analyst, IT Lead > IT DEPT > Dynacom Tankers Mgmt > -- Adrian Klaver adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
Hi Berto,
On 13/12/21 3:03 μ.μ., Bèrto ëd Sèra wrote:
On 13/12/21 3:03 μ.μ., Bèrto ëd Sèra wrote:
Yes they do touch port, otherwise they would be of little commercial value!On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 12:41, Achilleas Mantzios <achill@matrix.gatewaynet.com> wrote:Hmm, I don't know about that. The hardware is given (existing) and limited.
You are like the 2nd person who warned about comms as being an issue with docker/containers.
Quick question: do those ships ever touch port? If so, it's not a fact that you have to rely on sat com to do updates. Just keep an on-shore table of updates and do the updates every time a ship is in a port and can use a normal port wifi com. IMHO this would be the safest option EVEN if satcom was free of cost, as it will never be half as stable as a land based com line.
I am confused here : Are we talking about traffic due to :
a) normal business traffic (designed by me/us old system based on DBMirror)
b) system updates due to some decision of the system itself and/or our team
c) normal app shipping via new images, or new .ear/.war or whatever
?
And since you are not deploying the same thing everywhere (you quote different HW everywhere, so hardly one image could be optimised for everything), you are going to need to test upgrades for each ship, which is both dangerous and expensive, if done on sat com.
We are deploying the same exact app everywhere (jboss), but of course exim4, etc other services will be specific for every ship.
My 5p
Berto
-- Achilleas Mantzios DBA, Analyst, IT Lead IT DEPT Dynacom Tankers Mgmt
Check out rolling updates with kubernetis and yes, a containerized postgresql environment is likely the best option. The really nice bit about containers is that you don't actually care about underlying hardware. You need a docker daemon. K8 manages clusters and it sounds like your use case would benefit from that.
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021, 11:03 AM Achilleas Mantzios <achill@matrix.gatewaynet.com> wrote:
Hi Berto,
On 13/12/21 3:03 μ.μ., Bèrto ëd Sèra wrote:Yes they do touch port, otherwise they would be of little commercial value!On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 12:41, Achilleas Mantzios <achill@matrix.gatewaynet.com> wrote:Hmm, I don't know about that. The hardware is given (existing) and limited.
You are like the 2nd person who warned about comms as being an issue with docker/containers.
Quick question: do those ships ever touch port? If so, it's not a fact that you have to rely on sat com to do updates. Just keep an on-shore table of updates and do the updates every time a ship is in a port and can use a normal port wifi com. IMHO this would be the safest option EVEN if satcom was free of cost, as it will never be half as stable as a land based com line.
I am confused here : Are we talking about traffic due to :
a) normal business traffic (designed by me/us old system based on DBMirror)
b) system updates due to some decision of the system itself and/or our team
c) normal app shipping via new images, or new .ear/.war or whatever
?And since you are not deploying the same thing everywhere (you quote different HW everywhere, so hardly one image could be optimised for everything), you are going to need to test upgrades for each ship, which is both dangerous and expensive, if done on sat com.
We are deploying the same exact app everywhere (jboss), but of course exim4, etc other services will be specific for every ship.
My 5p
Berto-- Achilleas Mantzios DBA, Analyst, IT Lead IT DEPT Dynacom Tankers Mgmt
Hi
On 13/12/21 6:11 μ.μ., Benedict Holland wrote:
On 13/12/21 6:11 μ.μ., Benedict Holland wrote:
Thanks, postgresql's bigger challenges as we all know will be upgrading OIDs, upgrading the JDBC related java code, and maybe many more related challenges. I won't say which, but we are running an unsupported version of pgsql on the ships.Check out rolling updates with kubernetis and yes, a containerized postgresql environment is likely the best option. The really nice bit about containers is that you don't actually care about underlying hardware. You need a docker daemon. K8 manages clusters and it sounds like your use case would benefit from that.
So apps are much more frequently upgraded than the system of pgsql.
I will check out rolling upgrades with kubernetes. (are we talking BDR here?)
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021, 11:03 AM Achilleas Mantzios <achill@matrix.gatewaynet.com> wrote:Hi Berto,
On 13/12/21 3:03 μ.μ., Bèrto ëd Sèra wrote:Yes they do touch port, otherwise they would be of little commercial value!On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 12:41, Achilleas Mantzios <achill@matrix.gatewaynet.com> wrote:Hmm, I don't know about that. The hardware is given (existing) and limited.
You are like the 2nd person who warned about comms as being an issue with docker/containers.
Quick question: do those ships ever touch port? If so, it's not a fact that you have to rely on sat com to do updates. Just keep an on-shore table of updates and do the updates every time a ship is in a port and can use a normal port wifi com. IMHO this would be the safest option EVEN if satcom was free of cost, as it will never be half as stable as a land based com line.
I am confused here : Are we talking about traffic due to :
a) normal business traffic (designed by me/us old system based on DBMirror)
b) system updates due to some decision of the system itself and/or our team
c) normal app shipping via new images, or new .ear/.war or whatever
?And since you are not deploying the same thing everywhere (you quote different HW everywhere, so hardly one image could be optimised for everything), you are going to need to test upgrades for each ship, which is both dangerous and expensive, if done on sat com.
We are deploying the same exact app everywhere (jboss), but of course exim4, etc other services will be specific for every ship.
My 5p
Berto-- Achilleas Mantzios DBA, Analyst, IT Lead IT DEPT Dynacom Tankers Mgmt
-- Achilleas Mantzios DBA, Analyst, IT Lead IT DEPT Dynacom Tankers Mgmt
On 13/12/21 5:55 μ.μ., Adrian Klaver wrote: > On 12/13/21 03:41, Achilleas Mantzios wrote: >> Hi Rainer, >> >> On 13/12/21 11:50 π.μ., Rainer Duffner wrote: > > >> So Docker is NOT free? Please share your thoughts? I am a complete noob. > > Take a look here: > > https://www.docker.com/pricing Thank you Adrian! > >> Achilleas Mantzios >> DBA, Analyst, IT Lead >> IT DEPT >> Dynacom Tankers Mgmt >> > > -- Achilleas Mantzios DBA, Analyst, IT Lead IT DEPT Dynacom Tankers Mgmt
Thank you Rainer,
I'll have to play a little bit myself, and read some serious docs about it, in order to fully comprehend your thoughts.
I'll revisit your positions I hope.
On 13/12/21 5:11 μ.μ., Rainer Duffner wrote:
I'll have to play a little bit myself, and read some serious docs about it, in order to fully comprehend your thoughts.
I'll revisit your positions I hope.
On 13/12/21 5:11 μ.μ., Rainer Duffner wrote:
Am 13.12.2021 um 12:41 schrieb Achilleas Mantzios <achill@matrix.gatewaynet.com>:Our setup has been open source since forever. So licenses for something that used to be free for ages would be hard to introduce.That ist totally understandable.140x800 for the RHEL license alone is over 100k/year.Though you might get a volume discount at that point ;-)So Docker is NOT free? Please share your thoughts? I am a complete noob.The commercial version is not free.The „CE“ version is free, but I’m not sure how stable the API is.Dockerhub, for what it’s worth, isn’t completely free anymore either.Those servers I am talking about have no internet connectivity. And the satellite connection costs are high.
(although I think we pay a fixed amount for a certain total data transfer size).Yes. That’s why using a more offline-friendly infrastructure might make more sense.RHEL seems to be pretty well tuned running in high-secure air-gapped networks - which is what a ship basically is.Those servers live for years, the objective is to facilitate upgrades.The question is: do you want to get there?But maybe your developers want to get here, because they don’t want to learn about software-packaging (anymore) - but is that what the business wants?Yes, but docker-upgrades aren’t free either.At least, I cannot imagine running such an infrastructure in the gung-ho style that a typical developer runs his docker-containers.You’d want to run a tight ship with those ;-)You will need a lot more tooling around this (continuous integration, continuous deployment) - which is the reason I suggested moving all this infrastructure to the ship itself. If you produce and mirror the artifacts locally, you should have less backhaul traffic (which is what I assume is killing you with sat-com - downstream can probably be had cheap-ish these days - or pretty soon via the likes of StarLink)Thanks for the link, I didn't quite understand what they do with docker (video included).It’s passenger entertainment and engagement, from what I can see.It’s sad and funny to read, as shortly after that huge cruises got out of fashion ;-)It’s also not mission-critical.120 docker containers in two data centers on the ship? Ours will be just a single linux box with limited connectivity (in some seas no connectivity ) to the internet/shore.Yes, and this is IMO where you will have to get management on board to upgrade infrastructure and tooling around docker containers (and likely Kubernetes) - if your developers persist on using it that way.You will end up running a small server-cluster on each ship - I would guess there are specialized vendors who produce sea-worthy server-equipment.(That was pre-pandemic…)I would make an educated guess that you’d need to have the whole docker-infrastructure on each ship (build-server, repository etc.pp.) to minimize sat-com traffic.
Hmm, I don't know about that. The hardware is given (existing) and limited.
You are like the 2nd person who warned about comms as being an issue with docker/containers.
Can't someone have a free docker system inside a linux server and run the containers (free again) until he/she decides to upgrade either docker or (more frequently) one of the images?
Is Docker upwards compatible? Meaning new Docker versions to run old images ?Yes, likely. But upgrading docker itself sometimes comes with its own challenges.As you said, all these servers are with limited connectivity and no local help available...Again, I’m the last person you want to ask how docker actually works (but often, the developers themselves don’t know either, but they know which commands to feed it…)Also, most of my knowledge of ships is from watching NCIS (and reading Clive Cussler novels...).Can you please explain in more detail?I mean, it looks like it could be done. But this is where the „dev“ part in the „devops" world has to take a step back and the „ops“ guys need to come forward.With 140-ish servers air-gapped on vessels around the world, this is IMO a serious operations-problem and needs to be handled properly, with an air-tight (or water-tight…) operational concept.Your infrastructure has outgrown its original design limits. Time to talk to management about upping the game (and the budget).Best Regards
-- Achilleas Mantzios DBA, Analyst, IT Lead IT DEPT Dynacom Tankers Mgmt