Purpose of the document
GÉANT presents a large number of services which are used by the community and internally. These publicly exposed services have, in most cases, further dependencies on hidden system services such as authentication systems and databases. The expectation is that these services should be available 100% but in actuality they occasionally fail. Given this, duplicate copies of some services exist to provide redundancy, and while they are designed to protect from loss of data, failing-over the user interface requires manual intervention, which incurs a delay until carried out by an operator (this can sometime extend to a day or two if the outage occurs at the weekend, for instance). A further problem exists in that even where a service provides redundancy at the data and user-interface level, dependent service services upon which they rely often are not redundant, which means that there is nothing to fail over to and the underlying service needs to be repaired before the service is fully restored.
The following describes structures and facilities that will be introduced to improve service resilience and reliability in GÉANT.
Problems being addressed
A couple or examples of specific problems which have occurred in the recent past , which the work proposed in this document would hope to address, are listed here.
Dashboard
Two productions dashboard servers exist but users access a specific dashboard via a DNS CNAME dashboard-primary.geant.net. If the server to which the CNAME refers fails for any reason, an operator needs to manually adjust the value of the CNAME to point to he other dashboard.
Crowd authentication
Many systems, such as JIRA and Dashboard, depend on the Crowd server for user authentication and access control, which . The crowd server has failed occasionally in the past and prevented user access to Dashboard or JIRA. Providing a second Crowd server which can be failed-over to is relatively straight-forward (indeed, the uat-crowd server is configured identically to the prod-crowd) but failing-over to it is still a manual task in the current infrastructure.
A number of other services, such as cacti, poller, compendium, and generally most of the newer servers have redundant copies deployed (as prod-somename01 and 02 production servers) but
Two Crowd servers exists (prod-crowd, and uat-crowd) and contain identical information, but systems (such as Dashboard, JIRA, and others) are configured to use one or the other for authentication.
As outlined above, a number of services hosted by GÉANT have suffered from time to time with poor availability
A number of customer facing services have single points of failure, or where redundancy has been employed, manual intervention is required to access a specific redundant copy, such as where an end-user looks at either the 01 or 02 version of a service, or one of these alternative services is accessed via DNS CNAME entry which needs to updated manually. This is also true of infrastructure services, such as databases, authentication servers or other dependent services.
Examples:
- Primary and Backup dashboard: prod-newdboard01 and prod-newdboard02. A CNAME - dashboard-primary - points at either the 01 or 02 instance.
- Crowd authentication: prod-crowd and uat-crowd contain identical information, but systems (such as Jira) are configured to use one or the other.
prod-somename02 servers) but none are set up for automatic failover and all would expose a loss of service if the 01 server failed.
Generally, all service deployment can be done in the context of redundant services to provide high availability. The impact to SWD is very low. Services Services should be deployed such that they are essentially the primary in every case.
Design goals
Provide an infrastructure which supports automatic service failover. Service failover should be invisible to users of a service.
...
Monitor service availability. Services should be monitored for availability and redundancy.
Follow-up work: identify Identify and document remaining single points of failure.
Structure
Each server will run the consul agent and include a config listing the services it runs and how to monitor them (to test if they are serviceable). This should be maintained in puppet.
The consul servers create, update and push a DNS zone file. This should occur frequently enough as is reasonable to minimise a service DNS query miss. Perhaps every 5 minutes or more frequently?
Components
Consul: provides service discovery
Infoblox: DNS for sevices
...
Platform design
The current infrastructure tightly couples services with the server it is deployed upon. The following describes a setup which maintains the coupling of the service to a specific server but uses service discovery tools and DNS to advertise services dynamically.
The service discovery tool is an agent called Consul developed by HashiCorp (the same company responsible for Vagrant and Terraform).
The Consul agent operates in either client or server mode. Consul clients, running on GÉANT linux servers, register services with the Consul server. The Consul server then has a record of services running on the network and where they are located. With this information it can either act as a source for DNS lookups (via a DNS forward zone) or can update the network DNS server with information it knows about network services.
In this setup the consul client agent is installed on every node. Included with the service when it is deployed on a server, is the consul configuration for the service, and the agent uses this to register the service with the Consul Server. The Consul agent configuration includes a health check stanza which the Consul Server uses to confirm the health of a particular service and, thus, determines whether the service is advertised for use.
Services are advertised in DNS. The Consul Servers can by queried directly via a DNS forwarder, for instance, alternatively the Consul server can update GÉANT's DNS infrastructure by periodically pushing DNS zone files to Infoblox. A DNS query port on a consul server is a single point of failure so pushing a zone file to Infoblox is a more resilient solution.
Example for the dashboard service (using the image above)
In the image above there are two linux (VMs) each running dashboard. In addition node 1 also hosts an instance of cacti and node 2 the bodportal. Each node runs the Consul agent in "client" mode and registers all the services it knows about with the Consul server. The consul server periodically assembles all registered services into a DNS zonefile which it pushes to the DNS infrastructure (which in GÉANT is Infoblox). In the example here, the zonefile will contain two entries for dashboard and one each for cacti and bodportal.
When a web client loads dashboard, the DNS query returns one of the IPs it has for dashboard; above, node2 is returned.
The consul server continues to accept service registrations from consul clients as well as actively monitoring the health of registered services. So, for instance, should the dashboard instance on node 2 fail, the consul server will identify this and remove the node 2 IP for dashboard from the DNS zonefile. The next time a client loads dashboard it will only be offered the IP for node 1.
Todo - Low-level design
Components:
- Consul: provides service discovery: client and server modes.
- Infoblox: DNS for services - infoblox api used for deploying zonefile
- consul agent (client) installed on all servers which have services to be discovered
...
- quorum of consul servers (3 or 5 Consul servers is recommended)
- Consul server creates/generates DNS zonefile which is pushed to infoblox. Zonefile generated often (every minute?) but only pushed to infoblox if changed (need to detect and protect against flapping)
- service checks for every service include