Archive for category Cloud

Docker Log Aggregation and Visualization Options with the ELK Stack

elk

As a Developer and DevOps Engineer, it wasn’t that long ago, I spent a lot of time requesting logs from Operations teams for applications running in Production. Many organizations I’ve worked with have created elaborate systems for requesting, granting, and revoking access to application logs. Requesting and obtaining access to logs typically took hours or days, or simply never got approved. Since most enterprise applications are composed of individual components running on multiple application and web servers, it was necessary to request multiple logs. What was often a simple problem to diagnose and fix, became an unnecessarily time-consuming ordeal.

Hopefully, you are still not in this situation. Given the average complexity of today’s modern, distributed, containerized application platforms, accessing individual logs is simply unrealistic and ineffective. The solution is log aggregation and visualization.

Log Aggregation and Visualization

In the context of this post, log aggregation and visualization is defined as the collection, centralized storage, and ability to simultaneously display application logs from multiple, dissimilar sources. Take a typical modern web application. The frontend UI might be built with Angular, React, or Node. The UI is likely backed by multiple RESTful services, possibly built in Java Spring Boot or Python Flask, and a database or databases, such as MongoDB or MySQL. To support the application, there are auxiliary components, such as API gateways, load-balancers, and messaging brokers. These components are likely deployed as multiple instances, for performance and availability. All instances generate application logs in varying formats.

When troubleshooting an application, such as the one described above, you must often trace a user’s transaction from UI through firewalls and gateways, to the web server, back through the API gateway, to multiple backend services via load-balancers, through message queues, to databases, possibly to external third-party APIs, and back to the client. This is why log aggregation and visualization is essential.

Logging Options

Log aggregation and visualization solutions typically come in three varieties: cloud-hosted by a SaaS provider, a service provided by your Cloud provider, and self-hosted, either on-premises or in the cloud. Cloud-hosted SaaS solutions include Loggly, Splunk, Logentries, and Sumo Logic. Some of these solutions, such as Splunk, are also available as a self-hosted service. Cloud-provider solutions include AWS CloudWatch and Azure Application Insights. Most hosted solutions have reoccurring pricing models based on the volume of logs or the number of server nodes being monitored.

Self-hosted solutions include Graylog 2, Nagios Log Server, Splunk Free, and elastic’s Elastic Stack. The ELK Stack (Elasticsearch, Logstash, and Kibana), as it was previously known, has been re-branded the Elastic Stack, which now includes Beats. Beats is elastic’s lightweight shipper that send data from edge machines to Logstash and Elasticsearch.

Often, you will see other components mentioned in the self-hosted space, such as Fluentd, syslog, and Kafka. These are examples of log aggregators or datastores for logs. They lack the combined abilities to collect, store, and display multiple logs. These components are generally part of a larger log aggregation and visualization solution.

This post will explore self-hosted log aggregation and visualization of a Dockerized application on AWS, using the ELK Stack. The post details three common variations of log collection and routing to ELK, using various Docker logging drivers, along with Logspout, Fluentd, and GELF (Graylog Extended Log Format).

Docker Swarm Cluster

The post’s example application is deployed to a Docker Swarm, built on AWS, using Docker CE for AWS. Docker has automated the creation of a Swarm on AWS using Docker Cloud, right from your desktop. Creating a Swarm is as easy as inputting a few options and clicking build. Docker uses an AWS CloudFormation script to provision all the necessary AWS resources for the Docker Swarm.

swam_mode

For this post’s logging example, I built a minimally configured Docker Swarm cluster, consisting of a single Manager Node and three Worker Nodes. The four Swarm nodes, all EC2 instances, are behind an AWS ELB, inside a new AWS VPC.

Logging Diagram AWS Diagram 3D

As seen with the docker node ls command, the Docker Swarm will look similar to the following.

Sample Application Components

Multiple containerized copies of a simple Java Spring Boot RESTful Hello-World service, available on GitHub, along with the associated logging aggregators, are deployed to Worker Node 1 and Worker Node 2. We will explore each of these application components later in the post. The containerized components consist of the following:

  1. Fluentd (garystafford/custom-fluentd)
  2. Logspout (garystafford/custom-logspout)
  3. NGINX (garystafford/custom-nginx)
  4. Hello-World Service using Docker’s default JSON file logging driver
  5. Hello-World Service using Docker’s GELF logging driver
  6. Hello-World Service using Docker’s Fluentd logging driver

NGINX is used as a simple frontend API gateway, which to routes HTTP requests to each of the three logging variations of the Hello-World service (garystafford/hello-world).

A single container, running the entire ELK Stack (garystafford/custom-elk) is deployed to Worker Node 3. This is to isolate the ELK Stack from the application. Typically, in a real environment, ELK would be running on separate infrastructure for performance and security, not alongside your application. Running a docker service ls, the deployed services appear as follows.

Portainer

A single instance of Portainer (Docker Hub: portainer/portainer) is deployed on the single Manager Node. Portainer, amongst other things, provides a detailed view of Docker Swarm, showing each Swarm Node and the service containers deployed to them.

portainer

In my opinion, Portainer provides a much better user experience than Docker Enterprise Edition’s most recent Universal Control Plane (UCP). In the past, I have also used Visualizer (dockersamples/visualizer), one of the first open source solutions in this space. However, since the Visualizer project moved to Docker, it seems like the development of new features has completely stalled out. A good list of container tools can be found on StackShare.

Deployment

All the Docker service containers are deployed to the AWS-based Docker Swarm using a single Docker Compose file. The order of service startup is critical. ELK should fully startup first, followed by Fluentd and Logspout, then the three sets of Hello-World instances, and finally NGINX.

To deploy and start all the Docker services correctly, there are two scripts in the GitHub repository. First, execute the following command, sh ./stack_deploy.sh. This will deploy the Docker service stack and create an overlay network, containing all the services as configured in the docker-compose.yml file. Then, to ensure the services start in the correct sequence, execute sh ./service_update.sh. This will restart each service in the correct order, with pauses between services to allow time for startup; a bit of a hack, but effective.

Collection and Routing Examples

Below is a diagram showing all the components comprising this post’s examples, and includes the protocols and ports on which they communicate. Following, we will look at three variations of self-hosted log collection and routing options for ELK.

Logging Diagram

Example 1: Fluentd

The first example of log aggregation and visualization uses Fluentd, a Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF) hosted project. Fluentd is described as ‘an open source data collector for unified logging layer.’ A container running Fluentd with a custom configuration runs globally on each Worker Node where the applications are deployed, in this case, the hello-fluentd Docker service. Here is the custom Fluentd configuration file (fluent.conf):

The Hello-World service is configured through the Docker Compose file to use the Fluentd Docker logging driver. The log entries from the Hello-World containers on the Worker Nodes are diverted from being output to JSON files, using the default JSON file logging driver, to the Fluentd container instance on the same host as the Hello-World container. The Fluentd container is listening for TCP traffic on port 24224.

Fluentd then sends the individual log entries to Elasticsearch directly, bypassing Logstash. Fluentd log entries are sent via HTTP to port 9200, Elasticsearch’s JSON interface.

Logging Diagram Fluentd

Using Fluentd as a transport method, log entries appear as JSON documents in ELK, as shown below. This Elasticsearch JSON document is an example of a single line log entry. Note the primary field container identifier, when using Fluentd, is container_id. This field will vary depending on the Docker driver and log collector, as seen in the next two logging examples.

fluentd-log.png

The next example shows a Fluentd multiline log entry. Using the Fluentd Concat filter plugin (fluent-plugin-concat), the individual lines of a stack trace from a Java runtime exception, thrown by the hello-fluentd Docker service, have been recombined into a single Elasticsearch JSON document.

fluentd-multiline

In the above log entries, note the DEPLOY_ENV and SERVICE_NAME fields. These values were injected into the Docker Compose file, as environment variables, during deployment of the Hello-World service. The Fluentd Docker logging driver applies these as env options, as shown in the example Docker Compose snippet, below, lines 5-9.

Example 2: Logspout

The second example of log aggregation and visualization uses GliderLabs’ Logspout. Logspout is described by GliderLabs as ‘a log router for Docker containers that runs inside Docker. It attaches to all containers on a host, then routes their logs wherever you want. It also has an extensible module system.’ In the post’s example, a container running Logspout with a custom configuration runs globally on each Worker Node where the applications are deployed, identical to Fluentd.

The hello-logspout Docker service is configured through the Docker Compose file to use the default JSON file logging driver. According to Docker, ‘by default, Docker captures the standard output (and standard error) of all your containers and writes them in files using the JSON format. The JSON format annotates each line with its origin (stdout or stderr) and its timestamp. Each log file contains information about only one container.

Normally, it is not necessary to explicitly set the default Docker logging driver to JSON files. However, in this case, Docker CE for AWS automatically configured each Swarm Nodes Docker daemon default logging driver to Amazon CloudWatch Logs logging driver. The default drive may be seen by running the docker info command while attached to the Docker daemon. Note line 12 in the snippet below.

The hello-fluentd Docker service containers on the Worker Nodes send log entries to individual JSON files. The Fluentd container on each host then retrieves and routes those JSON log entries to Logstash, within the ELK container running on Worker Node 3, over UDP to port 5000. Logstash, which is explicitly listening for JSON via UDP on port 5000, then outputs those log entries to Elasticsearch, via HTTP to port 9200, Elasticsearch’s JSON interface.

Logging Diagram Logspout

Using Logspout as a transport method, log entries appear as JSON documents in ELK, as shown below. Note the field differences between the Fluentd log entry above and this entry. There are a number significant variations, making it difficult to use both methods, across the same distributed application. For example, the main body of the log entry is contained in the message field using Logspout, but in the log field using Fluentd. The name of the Docker container, which serves as the primary means of identifying the container instance, is the docker.name field with Logspout, but container.name for Fluentd.

Another helpful field, provided by Logspout, is the docker.image field. This is beneficial when associating code issues to a particular code release. In this example, the Hello-World service uses the latest Docker image tag, which is not considered best practice. However, in a real production environment, the Docker tags often represents the incremental build number from the CI/CD system, which is tied to a specific build of the code.

logspout-logThe other challenge I have had with Logspout is passing the env and tag options, such as DEPLOY_ENV and SERVICE_NAME, as seen previously with the Fluentd example. Note they are blank in the above sample. It is possible, but not as straightforward as with Fluentd, and requires interacting directly with the Docker daemon on each Worker node.

Example 3: Graylog Extended Format (GELF)

The third and final example of log aggregation and visualization uses the Docker Graylog Extended Format (GELF) logging driver. According to the GELF website, ‘the Graylog Extended Log Format (GELF) is a log format that avoids the shortcomings of classic plain syslog.’ These syslog shortcomings include a maximum length of 1024 bytes, no data types, multiple dialects making parsing difficult, and no compression.

The GELF format, designed to work with the Graylog Open Source Log Management Server, work equally as well with the ELK Stack. With the GELF logging driver, there is no intermediary logging collector and router, as with Fluentd and Logspout. The hello-gelf Docker service is configured through its Docker Compose file to use the GELF logging driver. The two hello-gelf Docker service containers on the Worker Nodes send log entries directly to Logstash, running within the ELK container, running on Worker Node 3, via UDP to port 12201.

Logstash, which is explicitly listening for UDP traffic on port 12201, then outputs those log entries to Elasticsearch, via HTTP to port 9200, Elasticsearch’s JSON interface.

Logging Diagram GELF

Using the Docker Graylog Extended Format (GELF) logging driver as a transport method, log entries appear as JSON documents in ELK, as shown below. They are the most verbose of the three formats.

gelf-logAgain, note the field differences between the Fluentd and Logspout log entries above, and this GELF entry. Both the field names of the main body of the log entry and the name of the Docker container are different from both previous examples.

Another bonus with GELF, each entry contains the command field, which stores the command used to start the container’s process. This can be helpful when troubleshooting application startup issues. Often, the exact container startup command might have been injected into the Docker Compose file at deploy time by the CI Server and contained variables, as is the case with the Hello-World service. Reviewing the log entry in Kibana for the command is much easier and safer than logging into the container and executing commands to check the running process for the startup command.

Unlike Logspout, and similar to Fluentd, note the DEPLOY_ENV and SERVICE_NAME fields are present in the GELF entry. These were injected into the Docker Compose file as environment variables during deployment of the Hello-World service. The GELF Docker logging driver applies these as env options. With GELF the entry also gets the optional tag, which was passed in the Docker Compose file’s service definition, tag: docker.{{.Name}}.

Unlike Fluentd, GELF and Logspout do not easily handle multiline logs. Below is an example of a multiline Java runtime exception thrown by the hello-gelf Docker service. The stack trace is not recombined into a single JSON document in Elasticsearch, like in the Fluentd example. The stack trace exists as multiple JSON documents, making troubleshooting much more difficult. Logspout entries will look similar to GELF.

gelf-multiline

Pros and Cons

In my opinion, and based on my level of experience with each of the self-hosted logging collection and routing options, the following some of their pros and cons.

Fluentd

  • Pros
    • Part of CNCF, Fluentd is becoming the defacto logging standard for cloud-native applications
    • Easily extensible via a large number of plugins
    • Easily containerized
    • Ability to easily handle multiline log entries (ie. Java stack trace)
    • Ability to use the Fluentd container’s service name as the Fluentd address, not an IP address or DNS resolvable hostname
  • Cons
    • Using Docker’s Fluentd logging driver, if the Fluentd container is not available on the container’s host, the container logging to Fluentd will fail (major con!)

Logspout

  • Pros
    • Doesn’t require a change to the default Docker JSON file logging driver, logs are still viewable via docker logs command (big plus!)
    • Easily to add and remove functionality via Golang modules
    • Easily containerized
  • Cons
    • Inability to easily handle multiline log entries (ie. Java stack trace)
    • Logspout containers must be restarted if ELK is restarted to restart logging
    • To reach Logstash, Logspout must use a DNS resolvable hostname or IP address, not the name of the ELK container on the same overlay network (big con!)

GELF

  • Pros
    • Application containers, using Docker GELF logging driver will not fail if downstream Logspout container is unavailable
    • Docker GELF logging driver allows compression of logs for shipment to Logspout
  • Cons
    • Inability to easily handle multiline log entries (ie. Java stack trace)

Conclusion

Of course, there are other self-hosted logging collection and routing options, including elastic’s Beats, journald, and various syslog servers. Each has their pros and cons, depending on your project’s needs. After building and maintaining several self-hosted mission-critical log aggregation and visualization solutions, it is easy to see the appeal of an off-the-shelf cloud-hosted SaaS solution such as Splunk or Cloud provider solutions such as Application Insights.

All opinions in this post are my own and not necessarily the views of my current employer or their clients.

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Docker Enterprise Edition: Multi-Environment, Single Control Plane Architecture for AWS

Final_DockerEE_21 (1)

Designing a successful, cloud-based containerized application platform requires a balance of performance and security with cost, reliability, and manageability. Ensuring that a platform meets all functional and non-functional requirements, while remaining within budget and is easily maintainable, can be challenging.

As Cloud Architect and DevOps Team Lead, I recently participated in the development of two architecturally similar, lightweight, cloud-based containerized application platforms. From the start, both platforms were architected to maximize security and performance, while minimizing cost and operational complexity. The later platform was built on AWS with Docker Enterprise Edition.

Docker Enterprise Edition

Released in March of this year, Docker Enterprise Edition (Docker EE) is a secure, full-featured container-based management platform. There are currently eight versions of Docker EE, available for Windows Server, Azure, AWS, and multiple Linux distros, including RHEL, CentOS, Ubuntu, SUSE, and Oracle.

Docker EE is one of several production-grade container orchestration Platforms as a Service (PaaS). Some of the other container platforms in this category include:

Docker Community Edition (CE), Kubernetes, and Apache Mesos are free and open-source. Some providers, such as Rancher Labs, offer enterprise support for an additional fee. Cloud-based services, such as Red Hat Openshift Online, AWS, GCE, and ACS, charge the typical usage monthly fee. Docker EE, similar to Mesosphere Enterprise DC/OS and Red Hat OpenShift, is priced on a per node/per year annual subscription model.

Docker EE is currently offered in three subscription tiers, including Basic, Standard, and Advanced. Additionally, Docker offers Business Day and Business Critical support. Docker EE’s Advanced Tier adds several significant features, including secure multi-tenancy with node-based isolation, and image security scanning and continuous vulnerability scanning, as part of Docker EE’s Docker Trusted Registry.

Architecting for Affordability and Maintainability

Building an enterprise-scale application platform, using public cloud infrastructure, such as AWS, and a licensed Containers-as-a-Service (CaaS) platform, such as Docker EE, can quickly become complex and costly to build and maintain. Based on current list pricing, the cost of a single Linux node ranges from USD 75 per month for basic support, up to USD 300 per month for Docker Enterprise Edition Advanced with Business Critical support. Although cost is relative to the value generated by the application platform, none the less, architects should always strive to avoid unnecessary complexity and cost.

Reoccurring operational costs, such as licensed software subscriptions, support contracts, and monthly cloud-infrastructure charges, are often overlooked by project teams during the build phase. Accurately forecasting reoccurring costs of a fully functional Production platform, under expected normal load, is essential. Teams often overlook how Docker image registries, databases, data lakes, and data warehouses, quickly swell, inflating monthly cloud-infrastructure charges to maintain the platform. The need to control cloud costs have led to the growth of third-party cloud management solutions, such as CloudCheckr Cloud Management Platform (CMP).

Shared Docker Environment Model

Most software development projects require multiple environments in which to continuously develop, test, demonstrate, stage, and release code. Creating separate environments, replete with their own Docker EE Universal Control Plane (aka Control Plane or UCP), Docker Trusted Registry (DTR), AWS infrastructure, and third-party components, would guarantee a high-level of isolation and performance. However, replicating all elements in each environment would add considerable build and run costs, as well as unnecessary complexity.

On both recent projects, we choose to create a single AWS Virtual Private Cloud (VPC), which contained all of the non-production environments required by our project teams. In parallel, we built an entirely separate Production VPC for the Production environment. I’ve seen this same pattern repeated with Red Hat OpenStack and Microsoft Azure.

Production

Isolating Production from the lower environments is essential to ensure security, and to eliminate non-production traffic from impacting the performance of Production. Corporate compliance and regulatory policies often dictate complete Production isolation. Having separate infrastructure, security appliances, role-based access controls (RBAC), configuration and secret management, and encryption keys and SSL certificates, are all required.

For complete separation of Production, different AWS accounts are frequently used. Separate AWS accounts provide separate billing, usage reporting, and AWS Identity and Access Management (IAM), amongst other advantages.

Performance and Staging

Unlike Production, there are few reasons to completely isolate lower-environments from one another. The exception I’ve encountered is Performance and Staging. These two environments are frequently separated from other environments to ensure the accuracy of performance testing and release staging activities. Performance testing, in particular, can generate enormous load on systems, which if not isolated, will impair adjacent environments, applications, and monitoring systems.

On a few recent projects, to reduce cost and complexity, we repurposed the UAT environment for performance testing, once user-acceptance testing was complete. Performance testing was conducted during off-peak development and testing periods, with access to adjacent environments blocked.

The multi-purpose UAT environment further served as a Staging environment. Applications were deployed and released to the UAT and Performance environments, following a nearly-identical process used for Production. Hotfixes to Production were also tested in this environment.

Example of Shared Environments

To demonstrate how to architect a shared non-production Docker EE environment, which minimizes cost and complexity, let’s examine the example shown below. In the example, built on AWS with Docker EE, there are four typical non-production environments, CI/CD, Development, Test, and UAT, and one Production environment.

Final_DockerEE_17

In the example, there are two separate VPCs, the Production VPC, and the Non-Production VPC. There is no reason to configure VPC Peering between the two VPCs, as there is no need for direct communication between the two. Within the Non-Production VPC, to the left in the diagram, there is a cluster of three Docker EE UCP Manager EC2 nodes, a cluster of three DTR Worker EC2 nodes, and the four environments, consisting of varying numbers of EC2 Worker nodes. Production, to the right of the diagram, has its own cluster of three UCP Manager EC2 nodes and a cluster of six EC2 Worker nodes.

Single Non-Production UCP

As a primary means of reducing cost and complexity, in the example, a single minimally-sized Docker EE UCP cluster of three Manager nodes orchestrate activities across all four non-production environments. Alternately, you would have to create a UCP cluster for each environment; that means nine more Worker Nodes to configure and maintain.

The UCP users, teams, organizations, access controls, Docker Secrets, overlay networks, and other UCP features, for all non-production environments, are managed through the single Control Plane. All deployments to all the non-production environments, from the CI/CD server, are performed through the single Control Plane. Each UCP Manager node is deployed to a different AWS Availability Zone (AZ) to ensure high-availability.

Shared DTR

As another means of reducing cost and complexity, in the example, a Docker EE DTR cluster of three Worker nodes contain all Docker image repositories. Both the non-production and the Production environments use this DTR as a secure source of all Docker images. Not having to replicate image repositories, access controls, infrastructure, and figuring out how to migrate images between two separate DTR clusters, is a significant time, cost, and complexity savings. Each DTR Worker node is also deployed to a different AZ to ensure high-availability.

Using a shared DTR between non-production and Production is an important security consideration your project team needs to consider. A single DTR, shared between non-production and Production, comes with inherent availability and security risks, which should be understood in advance.

Separate Non-Production Worker Nodes

In the shared non-production environments example, each environment has dedicated AWS EC2 instances configured as Docker EE Worker nodes. The number of Worker nodes is determined by the requirements for each environment, as dictated by the project’s Development, Testing, Security, and DevOps teams. Like the UCP and DTR clusters, each Worker node, within an individual environment, is deployed to a different AZ to ensure high-availability and mimic the Production architecture.

Minimizing the number of Worker nodes in each environment, as well as the type and size of each EC2 node, offers a significant potential cost and administrative savings.

Separate Environment Ingress

In the example, the UCP, DTR, and each of the four environments is accessed through separate URLs, using AWS Hosted Zone CNAME records (subdomains).

Final_DockerEE_16

Encrypted HTTPS traffic is routed through a series of security appliances, depending on traffic type, to individual private AWS Elastic Load Balancers (ELB), one for both UCPs, the DTR, and each of the environments. Each ELB load-balances traffic to the Docker EE nodes associated the specific traffic. All firewalls, ELBs, and the UCP and DTR are secured with a high-grade wildcard SSL certificate.

AWS_ELB

Separate Data Sources

In the shared non-production environments example, there is one Amazon Relational Database Service‎ (RDS) instance in non-Production and one Production. Both RDS instances are replicated across multiple Availability Zones. Within the single shared non-production RDS instance, there are four separate databases, one per non-production environment. This architecture sacrifices the potential database performance of separate RDS instances for additional cost and complexity.

Maintaining Environment Separation

Node Labels

To obtain sufficient environment separation while using a single UCP, each Docker EE Worker node is tagged with an environment node label. The node label indicates which environment the Worker node is associated with. For example, in the screenshot below, a Worker node is assigned to the Development environment by tagging it with the key of environment and the value of dev.

Node_Label

* The Docker EE screens shown here are from UCP 2.1.5, not the recently released 2.2.x, which has an updated UI appearance.Each service’s Docker Compose file uses deployment placement constraints, which indicate where Docker should or should not deploy services. In the hello-world Docker Compose file example below, the node.labels.environment constraint is set to the ENVIRONMENT variable, which is set during container deployment by the CI/CD server. This constraint directs Docker to only deploy the hello-world service to nodes which contain the placement constraint of node.labels.environment, whose value matches the ENVIRONMENT variable value.

Deploying from CI/CD Server

The ENVIRONMENT value is set as an environment variable, which is then used by the CI/CD server, running a docker stack deploy or a docker service update command, within a deployment pipeline. Below is an example of how to use the environment variable as part of a Jenkins pipeline as code Jenkinsfile.

Centralized Logging and Metrics Collection

Centralized logging and metrics collection systems are used for application and infrastructure dashboards, monitoring, and alerting. In the shared non-production environment examples, the centralized logging and metrics collection systems are internal to each VPC, but reside on separate EC2 instances and are not registered with the Control Plane. In this way, the logging and metrics collection systems should not impact the reliability, performance, and security of the applications running within Docker EE. In the example, Worker nodes run a containerized copy of fluentd, which collects and pushes logs to ELK’s Elasticsearch.

Logging and metrics collection systems could also be supplied by external cloud-based SaaS providers, such as LogglySysdig and Datadog, or by the platform’s cloud-provider, such as Amazon CloudWatch.

With four environments running multiple containerized copies of each service, figuring out which log entry came from which service instance, requires multiple data points. As shown in the example Kibana UI below, the environment value, along with the service name and container ID, as well as the git commit hash and branch, are added to each log entry for easier troubleshooting. To include the environment, the value of the ENVIRONMENT variable is passed to Docker’s fluentd log driver as an env option. This same labeling method is used to tag metrics.

ELK

Separate Docker Service Stacks

For further environment separation within the single Control Plane, services are deployed as part of the same Docker service stack. Each service stack contains all services that comprise an application running within a single environment. Multiple stacks may be required to support multiple, distinct applications within the same environment.

For example, in the screenshot below, a hello-world service container, built with a Docker image, tagged with build 59 of the Jenkins continuous integration pipeline, is deployed as part of both the Development (dev) and Test service stacks. The CD and UAT service stacks each contain different versions of the hello-world service.

Hello-World-UCP

Separate Docker Overlay Networks

For additional environment separation within the single non-production UCP, all Docker service stacks associated with an environment, reside on the same Docker overlay network. Overlay networks manage communications among the Docker Worker nodes, enabling service-to-service communication for all services on the same overlay network while isolating services running on one network from services running on another network.

in the example screenshot below, the hello-world service, a member of the test service stack, is running on the test_default overlay network.

Network

Cleaning Up

Having distinct environment-centric Docker service stacks and overlay networks makes it easy to clean up an environment, without impacting adjacent environments. Both service stacks and overlay networks can be removed to clear an environment’s contents.

Separate Performance Environment

In the alternative example below, a Performance environment has been added to the Non-Production VPC. To ensure a higher level of isolation, the Performance environment has its own UPC, RDS, and ELBs. The Performance environment shares the DTR, as well as the security, logging, and monitoring components, with the rest of the non-production environments.

Below, the Performance environment has half the number of Worker nodes as Production. Performance results can be scaled for expected Production performance, given more nodes. Alternately, the number of nodes can be scaled up temporarily to match Production, then scaled back down to a minimum after testing is complete.

Final_DockerEE_20

Shared DevOps Tooling

All environments leverage shared Development and DevOps resources, deployed to a separate VPC. Resources include Agile Application Lifecycle Management (ALM), such as JIRA or CA Agile Central, source control repository management (SCM), such as GitLab or Bitbucket, binary repository management, such as Artifactory or Nexus, and a CI/CD solution, such as Jenkins, TeamCity, or Bamboo.

From the DevOps VPC, Docker images are pushed and pulled from the DTR in the Non-Production VPC. Deployments of container-based application are executed from the DevOps VPC CI/CD server to the non-production, Performance, and Production UCPs. Separate DevOps CI/CD pipelines and access controls are essential in maintaining the separation of the non-production and Production environments.

Final_DockerEE_22

Complete Platform

Several common components found in a Docker EE cloud-based AWS platform were discussed in the post. However, a complete AWS application platform has many more moving parts. Below is a comprehensive list of components, including DevOps tooling, organized into two categories: 1) common components that can be potentially shared across the non-production environments to save cost and complexity, and 2) components that should be replicated in each non-environment for security and performance.

Shared Non-Production Components:

  • AWS
    • Virtual Private Cloud (VPC), Region, Availability Zones
    • Route Tables, Network ACLs, Internet Gateways
    • Subnets
    • Some Security Groups
    • IAM Groups, User, Roles, Policies (RBAC)
    • Relational Database Service‎ (RDS)
    • ElastiCache
    • API Gateway, Lambdas
    • S3 Buckets
    • Bastion Servers, NAT Gateways
    • Route 53 Hosted Zone (Registered Domain)
    • EC2 Key Pairs
    • Hardened Linux AMI
  • Docker EE
    • UCP and EC2 Manager Nodes
    • DTR and EC2 Worker Nodes
    • UCP and DTR Users, Teams, Organizations
    • DTR Image Repositories
    • Secret Management
  • Third-Party Components/Products
    • SSL Certificates
    • Security Components: Firewalls, Virus Scanning, VPN Servers
    • Container Security
    • End-User IAM
    • Directory Service
    • Log Aggregation
    • Metric Collection
    • Monitoring, Alerting
    • Configuration and Secret Management
  • DevOps
    • CI/CD Pipelines as Code
    • Infrastructure as Code
    • Source Code Repositories
    • Binary Artifact Repositories

Isolated Non-Production Components:

  • AWS
    • Route 53 Hosted Zones and Associated Records
    • Elastic Load Balancers (ELB)
    • Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2) Worker Nodes
    • Elastic IPs
    • ELB and EC2 Security Groups
    • RDS Databases (Single RDS Instance with Separate Databases)

All opinions in this post are my own and not necessarily the views of my current employer or their clients.

, , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

The Evolving Role of DevOps in Emerging Technologies

31970399_m

Growth of DevOps

The adoption of DevOps practices by global organizations has become mainstream, according to many recent industry studies. For instance, a late 2016 study, conducted by IDG Research for Unisys Corporation of global enterprise organizations, found 38 percent of respondents had already adopted DevOps, while another 29 percent were in the planning phase, and 17 percent in the evaluation stage. Adoption rates were even higher, 49 percent versus 38 percent, for larger organizations with 500 or more developers.

Another recent 2017 study by Red Gate Software, The State of Database DevOps, based on 1,000 global organizations, found 47 percent of the respondents had already adopted DevOps practices, with another 33 percent planning on adopting DevOps practices within the next 24 months. Similar to the Unisys study, prior adoption rates were considerably higher, 59 percent versus 47 percent, for larger organizations with over 1,000 employees.

Emerging Technologies

Although DevOps originated to meet the needs of Agile software development to release more frequently, DevOps is no longer just continuous integration and continuous delivery. As more organizations undergo a digital transformation and adopt disruptive technologies to drive business success, the role of DevOps continues to evolve and expand.

Emerging technology trends, such as Machine Learning, Artificial Intelligence (AI), and Internet of Things (IoT/IIoT), serve to both influence DevOps practices, as well as create the need for the application of DevOps practices to these emerging technologies. Let’s examine the impact of some of these emerging technology trends on DevOps in this brief, two-part post.

Mobile

Although mobile application development is certainly not new, DevOps practices around mobile continue to evolve as mobile becomes the primary application platform for many organizations. Mobile applications have unique development and operational requirements. Take for example UI functional testing. Whereas web application developers often test against a relatively small matrix of popular web browsers and operating systems (Desktop Browser Market Share – Net Application.com), mobile developers must test against a continuous outpouring of new mobile devices, both tablets and phones (Test on the right mobile devices – BroswerStack). The complexity of automating the testing of such a large number mobile devices has resulted in the growth of specialized cloud-based testing platforms, such as BrowserStack and SauceLabs.

Cloud

Similar to Mobile, the Cloud is certainly not new. However, as more firms move their IT operations to the Cloud, DevOps practices have had to adapt rapidly. The need to adjust is no more apparent than with Amazon Web Services. Currently, AWS lists no less than 18 categories of cloud offerings on their website, with each category containing several products and services. Categories include compute, storage, databases, networking, security, messaging, mobile, AI, IoT, and analytics.

In addition to products like compute, storage, and database, AWS now offers development, DevOps, and management tools, such as AWS OpsWorks and AWS CloudFormation. These products offer alternatives to traditional non-cloud CI/CD/RM workflows for deploying and managing complex application platforms on AWS. Learning the nuances of a growing list of AWS specific products and workflows, while simultaneously adapting your organization’s DevOps practices to them, has resulted in a whole new category of DevOps engineering specialization centered around AWS. Cloud-centric DevOps engineering specialization is also seen with other large cloud providers, such as Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud Platform.

Security

Call it DevSecOps, SecDevOps, SecOps, or Rugged DevOps, the intersection of DevOps and Security is bustling these days. As the complexity of modern application platforms grows, as well as the sophistication of threats from hackers and the requirements of government and industry compliance, security is no longer an afterthought or a process run in seeming isolation from software development and DevOps. In my recent experience, it is not uncommon to see IT security specialists actively participating on Agile development teams and embedded on DevOps and Platform teams.

Modern application platforms must be designed from day one to be bug-free, performant, compliant, and secure.

Security practices are now commonly part of the entire software development lifecycle, including enterprise architecture, software development, data governance, continuous testing, and infrastructure as code. Modern application platforms must be designed from day one to be bug-free, performant, compliant, and secure.

Take for example penetration (PEN) testing. Once a mostly manual process, done close to release time, evolving DevOps practices now allow testing for security vulnerabilities to applications and software-defined infrastructure to be done early and often in the software development lifecycle. Easily automatable and configurable cloud- and non-cloud-based tools like SonarQube, Veracode, QualysOWASP ZAP, and Chef Compliance, amongst others, are frequently incorporated into continuous integration workflows by development and DevOps teams. There is no longer an excuse for security vulnerabilities to be discovered just before release, or worse, in Production.

Modern Platforms

Along with the Cloud, modern application development trends, like the rise of the platform, microservices (or service-based architectures), containerization, NoSQL databases, and container orchestration, have likely provided the majority of fuel for the recent explosive growth of DevOps. Although innovative IT organizations have fostered these technologies for the past few years, their growth and relative maturity have risen sharply in the last 12 to 18 months.

No longer the stuff of Unicorns, platforms based on Evolutionary Architectures are being built and deployed by an increasing number of everyday organizations.

No longer the stuff of Unicorns, such as Amazon, Etsy, and Netflix, platforms based on Evolutionary Architectures are being built and deployed by an increasing number of everyday organizations. Although complexity continues to rise, the barrier to entry has been greatly reduced with technologies found across the SDLC, including  Node, Spring Boot, Docker, Consul, Terraform, and Kubernetes, amongst others.

As modern platforms become more commonplace, the DevOps practices around them continue to mature and become specialized. Imagine, with potentially hundreds of moving parts, building, testing, deploying, and actively managing a large-scale microservice-based application on a container orchestration platform requires highly-specialized knowledge. The ability to ‘do DevOps at scale’ is critical.

Legacy Systems

Legacy systems as an emerging technology trend in DevOps? As the race to build the ‘next generation’ of application platforms accelerates to meet the demands of the business and their customers, there is a growing need to support ‘last generation’ systems. Many IT organizations support multiple legacy systems, ranging in age from as short as five years old to more than 25 years old. These monolithic legacy systems, which often contain a company’s secret sauce, such as complex business algorithms and decision engines, are built on out-moded technology stacks, often lack vendor support, and require separate processes to build, test, deploy, and manage. Worse, the knowledge to maintain these systems is frequently only known to a shrinking group of IT resources. Who wants to work on the old system with so many bright and shiny toys being built?

As a cost-effective means to maintain these legacy systems, organizations are turning to modern DevOps practices. Although not possible to the same degree, depending on the legacy technology, practices include the use source control, various types of automated testing, automated provisioning, deployment and configuration of system components, and infrastructure automation (DevOps for legacy systems – Infosys white paper).

Not specifically a DevOps practice, organizations are also implementing content collaboration systems, like Atlassian Confluence and Microsoft SharePoint, to document legacy system architectures and manual processes, before the resources and their knowledge is lost.

To be Continued

In a future post, we will look additional emerging technologies and their impact on DevOps, including:

  • Big Data
  • Internet of Things (IoT/IIoT)
  • Artificial Intelligence (AI)
  • Machine Learning
  • COTS/SaaS

All opinions in this post are my own and not necessarily the views of my current employer or their clients.

 

Illustration Copyright: Andreus / 123RF Stock Photo

, , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Provision and Deploy a Consul Cluster on AWS, using Terraform, Docker, and Jenkins

Cover2

Introduction

Modern DevOps tools, such as HashiCorp’s Packer and Terraform, make it easier to provision and manage complex cloud architecture. Utilizing a CI/CD server, such as Jenkins, to securely automate the use of these DevOps tools, ensures quick and consistent results.

In a recent post, Distributed Service Configuration with Consul, Spring Cloud, and Docker, we built a Consul cluster using Docker swarm mode, to host distributed configurations for a Spring Boot application. The cluster was built locally with VirtualBox. This architecture is fine for development and testing, but not for use in Production.

In this post, we will deploy a highly available three-node Consul cluster to AWS. We will use Terraform to provision a set of EC2 instances and accompanying infrastructure. The instances will be built from a hybrid AMIs containing the new Docker Community Edition (CE). In a recent post, Baking AWS AMI with new Docker CE Using Packer, we provisioned an Ubuntu AMI with Docker CE, using Packer. We will deploy Docker containers to each EC2 host, containing an instance of Consul server.

All source code can be found on GitHub.

Jenkins

I have chosen Jenkins to automate all of the post’s build, provisioning, and deployment tasks. However, none of the code is written specific to Jenkins; you may run all of it from the command line.

For this post, I have built four projects in Jenkins, as follows:

  1. Provision Docker CE AMI: Builds Ubuntu AMI with Docker CE, using Packer
  2. Provision Consul Infra AWS: Provisions Consul infrastructure on AWS, using Terraform
  3. Deploy Consul Cluster AWS: Deploys Consul to AWS, using Docker
  4. Destroy Consul Infra AWS: Destroys Consul infrastructure on AWS, using Terraform

Jenkins UI

We will primarily be using the ‘Provision Consul Infra AWS’, ‘Deploy Consul Cluster AWS’, and ‘Destroy Consul Infra AWS’ Jenkins projects in this post. The fourth Jenkins project, ‘Provision Docker CE AMI’, automates the steps found in the recent post, Baking AWS AMI with new Docker CE Using Packer, to build the AMI used to provision the EC2 instances in this post.

Consul AWS Diagram 2

Terraform

Using Terraform, we will provision EC2 instances in three different Availability Zones within the US East 1 (N. Virginia) Region. Using Terraform’s Amazon Web Services (AWS) provider, we will create the following AWS resources:

  • (1) Virtual Private Cloud (VPC)
  • (1) Internet Gateway
  • (1) Key Pair
  • (3) Elastic Cloud Compute (EC2) Instances
  • (2) Security Groups
  • (3) Subnets
  • (1) Route
  • (3) Route Tables
  • (3) Route Table Associations

The final AWS architecture should resemble the following:

Consul AWS Diagram

Production Ready AWS

Although we have provisioned a fairly complete VPC for this post, it is far from being ready for Production. I have created two security groups, limiting the ingress and egress to the cluster. However, to further productionize the environment would require additional security hardening. At a minimum, you should consider adding public/private subnets, NAT gateways, network access control list rules (network ACLs), and the use of HTTPS for secure communications.

In production, applications would communicate with Consul through local Consul clients. Consul clients would take part in the LAN gossip pool from different subnets, Availability Zones, Regions, or VPCs using VPC peering. Communications would be tightly controlled by IAM, VPC, subnet, IP address, and port.

Also, you would not have direct access to the Consul UI through a publicly exposed IP or DNS address. Access to the UI would be removed altogether or locked down to specific IP addresses, and accessed restricted to secure communication channels.

Consul

We will achieve high availability (HA) by clustering three Consul server nodes across the three Elastic Cloud Compute (EC2) instances. In this minimally sized, three-node cluster of Consul servers, we are protected from the loss of one Consul server node, one EC2 instance, or one Availability Zone(AZ). The cluster will still maintain a quorum of two nodes. An additional level of HA that Consul supports, multiple datacenters (multiple AWS Regions), is not demonstrated in this post.

Docker

Having Docker CE already installed on each EC2 instance allows us to execute remote Docker commands over SSH from Jenkins. These commands will deploy and configure a Consul server node, within a Docker container, on each EC2 instance. The containers are built from HashiCorp’s latest Consul Docker image pulled from Docker Hub.

Getting Started

Preliminary Steps

If you have built infrastructure on AWS with Terraform, these steps should be familiar to you:

  1. First, you will need an AMI with Docker. I suggest reading Baking AWS AMI with new Docker CE Using Packer.
  2. You will need an AWS IAM User with the proper access to create the required infrastructure. For this post, I created a separate Jenkins IAM User with PowerUser level access.
  3. You will need to have an RSA public-private key pair, which can be used to SSH into the EC2 instances and install Consul.
  4. Ensure you have your AWS credentials set. I usually source mine from a .env file, as environment variables. Jenkins can securely manage credentials, using secret text or files.
  5. Fork and/or clone the Consul cluster project from  GitHub.
  6. Change the aws_key_name and public_key_path variable values to your own RSA key, in the variables.tf file
  7. Change the aws_amis_base variable values to your own AMI ID (see step 1)
  8. If you are do not want to use the US East 1 Region and its AZs, modify the variables.tf, network.tf, and instances.tf files.
  9. Disable Terraform’s remote state or modify the resource to match your remote state configuration, in the main.tf file. I am using an Amazon S3 bucket to store my Terraform remote state.

Building an AMI with Docker

If you have not built an Amazon Machine Image (AMI) for use in this post already, you can do so using the scripts provided in the previous post’s GitHub repository. To automate the AMI build task, I built the ‘Provision Docker CE AMI’ Jenkins project. Identical to the other three Jenkins projects in this post, this project has three main tasks, which include: 1) SCM: clone the Packer AMI GitHub project, 2) Bindings: set up the AWS credentials, and 3) Build: run Packer.

The SCM and Bindings tasks are identical to the other projects (see below for details), except for the use of a different GitHub repository. The project’s Build step, which runs the packer_build_ami.sh script looks as follows:

jenkins_13

The resulting AMI ID will need to be manually placed in Terraform’s variables.tf file, before provisioning the AWS infrastructure with Terraform. The new AMI ID will be displayed in Jenkin’s build output.

jenkins_14

Provisioning with Terraform

Based on the modifications you made in the Preliminary Steps, execute the terraform validate command to confirm your changes. Then, run the terraform plan command to review the plan. Assuming are were no errors, finally, run the terraform apply command to provision the AWS infrastructure components.

In Jenkins, I have created the ‘Provision Consul Infra AWS’ project. This project has three tasks, which include: 1) SCM: clone the GitHub project, 2) Bindings: set up the AWS credentials, and 3) Build: run Terraform. Those tasks look as follows:

Jenkins_08.png

You will obviously need to use your modified GitHub project, incorporating the configuration changes detailed above, as the SCM source for Jenkins.

Jenkins Credentials

You will also need to configure your AWS credentials.

Jenkins_03.png

The provision_infra.sh script provisions the AWS infrastructure using Terraform. The script also updates Terraform’s remote state. Remember to update the remote state configuration in the script to match your personal settings.

The Jenkins build output should look similar to the following:

jenkins_12.png

Although the build only takes about 90 seconds to complete, the EC2 instances could take a few extra minutes to complete their Status Checks and be completely ready. The final results in the AWS EC2 Management Console should look as follows:

EC2 Management Console

Note each EC2 instance is running in a different US East 1 Availability Zone.

Installing Consul

Once the AWS infrastructure is running and the EC2 instances have completed their Status Checks successfully, we are ready to deploy Consul. In Jenkins, I have created the ‘Deploy Consul Cluster AWS’ project. This project has three tasks, which include: 1) SCM: clone the GitHub project, 2) Bindings: set up the AWS credentials, and 3) Build: run an SSH remote Docker command on each EC2 instance to deploy Consul. The SCM and Bindings tasks are identical to the project above. The project’s Build step looks as follows:

Jenkins_04.png

First, the delete_containers.sh script deletes any previous instances of Consul containers. This is helpful if you need to re-deploy Consul. Next, the deploy_consul.sh script executes a series of SSH remote Docker commands to install and configure Consul on each EC2 instance.

The entire Jenkins build process only takes about 30 seconds. Afterward, the output from a successful Jenkins build should show that all three Consul server instances are running, have formed a quorum, and have elected a Leader.

Jenkins_05.png

Persisting State

The Consul Docker image exposes VOLUME /consul/data, which is a path were Consul will place its persisted state. Using Terraform’s remote-exec provisioner, we create a directory on each EC2 instance, at /home/ubuntu/consul/config. The docker run command bind-mounts the container’s /consul/data path to the EC2 host’s /home/ubuntu/consul/config directory.

According to Consul, the Consul server container instance will ‘store the client information plus snapshots and data related to the consensus algorithm and other state, like Consul’s key/value store and catalog’ in the /consul/data directory. That container directory is now bind-mounted to the EC2 host, as demonstrated below.

jenkins_15

Accessing Consul

Following a successful deployment, you should be able to use the public URL, displayed in the build output of the ‘Deploy Consul Cluster AWS’ project, to access the Consul UI. Clicking on the Nodes tab in the UI, you should see all three Consul server instances, one per EC2 instance, running and healthy.

Consul UI

Destroying Infrastructure

When you are finished with the post, you may want to remove the running infrastructure, so you don’t continue to get billed by Amazon. The ‘Destroy Consul Infra AWS’ project destroys all the AWS infrastructure, provisioned as part of this post, in about 60 seconds. The project’s SCM and Bindings tasks are identical to the both previous projects. The Build step calls the destroy_infra.sh script, which is included in the GitHub project. The script executes the terraform destroy -force command. It will delete all running infrastructure components associated with the post and update Terraform’s remote state.

Jenkins_09

Conclusion

This post has demonstrated how modern DevOps tooling, such as HashiCorp’s Packer and Terraform, make it easy to build, provision and manage complex cloud architecture. Using a CI/CD server, such as Jenkins, to securely automate the use of these tools, ensures quick and consistent results.

All opinions in this post are my own and not necessarily the views of my current employer or their clients.

, , , , , , , , , ,

3 Comments

Baking AWS AMI with new Docker CE Using Packer

AWS for Docker

Introduction

On March 2 (less than a week ago as of this post), Docker announced the release of Docker Enterprise Edition (EE), a new version of the Docker platform optimized for business-critical deployments. As part of the release, Docker also renamed the free Docker products to Docker Community Edition (CE). Both products are adopting a new time-based versioning scheme for both Docker EE and CE. The initial release of Docker CE and EE, the 17.03 release, is the first to use the new scheme.

Along with the release, Docker delivered excellent documentation on installing, configuring, and troubleshooting the new Docker EE and CE. In this post, I will demonstrate how to partially bake an existing Amazon Machine Image (Amazon AMI) with the new Docker CE, preparing it as a base for the creation of Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud (Amazon EC2) compute instances.

Adding Docker and similar tooling to an AMI is referred to as partially baking an AMI, often referred to as a hybrid AMI. According to AWS, ‘hybrid AMIs provide a subset of the software needed to produce a fully functional instance, falling in between the fully baked and JeOS (just enough operating system) options on the AMI design spectrum.

Installing Docker CE on an AWS AMI should not be confused with Docker’s also recently announced Docker Community Edition (CE) for AWS. Docker for AWS offers multiple CloudFormation templates for Docker EE and CE. According to Docker, Docker for AWS ‘provides a Docker-native solution that avoids operational complexity and adding unneeded additional APIs to the Docker stack.

Base AMI

Docker provides detailed directions for installing Docker CE and EE onto several major Linux distributions. For this post, we will choose a widely used Linux distro, Ubuntu. According to Docker, currently Docker CE and EE can be installed on three popular Ubuntu releases:

  • Yakkety 16.10
  • Xenial 16.04 (LTS)
  • Trusty 14.04 (LTS)

To provision a small EC2 instance in Amazon’s US East (N. Virginia) Region, I will choose Ubuntu 16.04.2 LTS Xenial Xerus . According to Canonical’s Amazon EC2 AMI Locator website, a Xenial 16.04 LTS AMI is available, ami-09b3691f, for US East 1, as a t2.micro EC2 instance type.

Packer

HashiCorp Packer will be used to partially bake the base Ubuntu Xenial 16.04 AMI with Docker CE 17.03. HashiCorp describes Packer as ‘a tool for creating machine and container images for multiple platforms from a single source configuration.’ The JSON-format Packer file is as follows:

{
  "variables": {
    "aws_access_key": "{{env `AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID`}}",
    "aws_secret_key": "{{env `AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY`}}",
    "us_east_1_ami": "ami-09b3691f",
    "name": "aws-docker-ce-base",
    "us_east_1_name": "ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base",
    "ssh_username": "ubuntu"
  },
  "builders": [
    {
      "name": "{{user `us_east_1_name`}}",
      "type": "amazon-ebs",
      "access_key": "{{user `aws_access_key`}}",
      "secret_key": "{{user `aws_secret_key`}}",
      "region": "us-east-1",
      "vpc_id": "",
      "subnet_id": "",
      "source_ami": "{{user `us_east_1_ami`}}",
      "instance_type": "t2.micro",
      "ssh_username": "{{user `ssh_username`}}",
      "ssh_timeout": "10m",
      "ami_name": "{{user `us_east_1_name`}} {{timestamp}}",
      "ami_description": "{{user `us_east_1_name`}} AMI",
      "run_tags": {
        "ami-create": "{{user `us_east_1_name`}}"
      },
      "tags": {
        "ami": "{{user `us_east_1_name`}}"
      },
      "ssh_private_ip": false,
      "associate_public_ip_address": true
    }
  ],
  "provisioners": [
    {
      "type": "file",
      "source": "bootstrap_docker_ce.sh",
      "destination": "/tmp/bootstrap_docker_ce.sh"
    },
    {
          "type": "file",
          "source": "cleanup.sh",
          "destination": "/tmp/cleanup.sh"
    },
    {
      "type": "shell",
      "execute_command": "echo 'packer' | sudo -S sh -c '{{ .Vars }} {{ .Path }}'",
      "inline": [
        "whoami",
        "cd /tmp",
        "chmod +x bootstrap_docker_ce.sh",
        "chmod +x cleanup.sh",
        "ls -alh /tmp",
        "./bootstrap_docker_ce.sh",
        "sleep 10",
        "./cleanup.sh"
      ]
    }
  ]
}

The Packer file uses Packer’s amazon-ebs builder type. This builder is used to create Amazon AMIs backed by Amazon Elastic Block Store (EBS) volumes, for use in EC2.

Bootstrap Script

To install Docker CE on the AMI, the Packer file executes a bootstrap shell script. The bootstrap script and subsequent cleanup script are executed using  Packer’s remote shell provisioner. The bootstrap is like the following:

#!/bin/sh

sudo apt-get remove docker docker-engine

sudo apt-get install \
    apt-transport-https \
    ca-certificates \
    curl \
    software-properties-common

curl -fsSL https://download.docker.com/linux/ubuntu/gpg | sudo apt-key add -
sudo apt-key fingerprint 0EBFCD88

sudo add-apt-repository \
   "deb [arch=amd64] https://download.docker.com/linux/ubuntu \
   $(lsb_release -cs) \
   stable"
sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get -y upgrade
sudo apt-get install -y docker-ce

sudo groupadd docker
sudo usermod -aG docker ubuntu

sudo systemctl enable docker

This script closely follows directions provided by Docker, for installing Docker CE on Ubuntu. After removing any previous copies of Docker, the script installs Docker CE. To ensure sudo is not required to execute Docker commands on any EC2 instance provisioned from resulting AMI, the script adds the ubuntu user to the docker group.

The bootstrap script also uses systemd to start the Docker daemon. Starting with Ubuntu 15.04, Systemd System and Service Manager is used by default instead of the previous init system, Upstart. Systemd ensures Docker will start on boot.

Cleaning Up

It is best good practice to clean up your activities after baking an AMI. I have included a basic clean up script. The cleanup script is as follows:

#!/bin/sh

set -e

echo 'Cleaning up after bootstrapping...'
sudo apt-get -y autoremove
sudo apt-get -y clean
sudo rm -rf /tmp/*
cat /dev/null > ~/.bash_history
history -c
exit

Partially Baking

Before running Packer to build the Docker CE AMI, I set both my AWS access key and AWS secret access key. The Packer file expects the AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID and AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY environment variables.

Running the packer build ubuntu_docker_ce_ami.json command builds the AMI. The abridged output should look similar to the following:

$ packer build docker_ami.json
ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base output will be in this color.

==> ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Prevalidating AMI Name...
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Found Image ID: ami-09b3691f
==> ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Creating temporary keypair: packer_58bc7a49-9e66-7f76-ce8e-391a67d94987
==> ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Creating temporary security group for this instance...
==> ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Authorizing access to port 22 the temporary security group...
==> ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Launching a source AWS instance...
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Instance ID: i-0ca883ecba0c28baf
==> ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Waiting for instance (i-0ca883ecba0c28baf) to become ready...
==> ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Adding tags to source instance
==> ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Waiting for SSH to become available...
==> ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Connected to SSH!
==> ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Uploading bootstrap_docker_ce.sh => /tmp/bootstrap_docker_ce.sh
==> ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Uploading cleanup.sh => /tmp/cleanup.sh
==> ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Provisioning with shell script: /var/folders/kf/637b0qns7xb0wh9p8c4q0r_40000gn/T/packer-shell189662158
    ...
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Reading package lists...
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Building dependency tree...
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Reading state information...
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: E: Unable to locate package docker-engine
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Reading package lists...
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Building dependency tree...
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Reading state information...
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: ca-certificates is already the newest version (20160104ubuntu1).
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: apt-transport-https is already the newest version (1.2.19).
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: curl is already the newest version (7.47.0-1ubuntu2.2).
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: software-properties-common is already the newest version (0.96.20.5).
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: OK
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: pub   4096R/0EBFCD88 2017-02-22
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Key fingerprint = 9DC8 5822 9FC7 DD38 854A  E2D8 8D81 803C 0EBF CD88
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: uid                  Docker Release (CE deb) <docker@docker.com>
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: sub   4096R/F273FCD8 2017-02-22
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base:
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Hit:1 http://us-east-1.ec2.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu xenial InRelease
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Get:2 http://us-east-1.ec2.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu xenial-updates InRelease [102 kB]
    ...
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Get:27 http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu xenial-security/universe amd64 Packages [89.5 kB]
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Fetched 10.6 MB in 2s (4,065 kB/s)
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Reading package lists...
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Reading package lists...
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Building dependency tree...
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Reading state information...
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Calculating upgrade...
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Reading package lists...
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Building dependency tree...
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Reading state information...
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: The following additional packages will be installed:
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: aufs-tools cgroupfs-mount libltdl7
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Suggested packages:
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: mountall
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: The following NEW packages will be installed:
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: aufs-tools cgroupfs-mount docker-ce libltdl7
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: 0 upgraded, 4 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Need to get 19.4 MB of archives.
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: After this operation, 89.4 MB of additional disk space will be used.
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Get:1 http://us-east-1.ec2.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu xenial/universe amd64 aufs-tools amd64 1:3.2+20130722-1.1ubuntu1 [92.9 kB]
    ...
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Get:4 https://download.docker.com/linux/ubuntu xenial/stable amd64 docker-ce amd64 17.03.0~ce-0~ubuntu-xenial [19.3 MB]
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: debconf: unable to initialize frontend: Dialog
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: debconf: (Dialog frontend will not work on a dumb terminal, an emacs shell buffer, or without a controlling terminal.)
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: debconf: falling back to frontend: Readline
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: debconf: unable to initialize frontend: Readline
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: debconf: (This frontend requires a controlling tty.)
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: debconf: falling back to frontend: Teletype
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: dpkg-preconfigure: unable to re-open stdin:
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Fetched 19.4 MB in 1s (17.8 MB/s)
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Selecting previously unselected package aufs-tools.
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: (Reading database ... 53844 files and directories currently installed.)
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Preparing to unpack .../aufs-tools_1%3a3.2+20130722-1.1ubuntu1_amd64.deb ...
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Unpacking aufs-tools (1:3.2+20130722-1.1ubuntu1) ...
    ...
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Setting up docker-ce (17.03.0~ce-0~ubuntu-xenial) ...
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Processing triggers for libc-bin (2.23-0ubuntu5) ...
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Processing triggers for systemd (229-4ubuntu16) ...
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Processing triggers for ureadahead (0.100.0-19) ...
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: groupadd: group 'docker' already exists
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Synchronizing state of docker.service with SysV init with /lib/systemd/systemd-sysv-install...
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Executing /lib/systemd/systemd-sysv-install enable docker
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Cleanup...
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Reading package lists...
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Building dependency tree...
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Reading state information...
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
==> ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Stopping the source instance...
==> ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Waiting for the instance to stop...
==> ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Creating the AMI: ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base 1288227081
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: AMI: ami-e9ca6eff
==> ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Waiting for AMI to become ready...
==> ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Modifying attributes on AMI (ami-e9ca6eff)...
    ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Modifying: description
==> ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Modifying attributes on snapshot (snap-058a26c0250ee3217)...
==> ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Adding tags to AMI (ami-e9ca6eff)...
==> ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Tagging snapshot: snap-043a16c0154ee3217
==> ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Creating AMI tags
==> ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Creating snapshot tags
==> ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Terminating the source AWS instance...
==> ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Cleaning up any extra volumes...
==> ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: No volumes to clean up, skipping
==> ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Deleting temporary security group...
==> ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: Deleting temporary keypair...
Build 'ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base' finished.

==> Builds finished. The artifacts of successful builds are:
--> ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base: AMIs were created:

us-east-1: ami-e9ca6eff

Results

The result is an Ubuntu 16.04 AMI in US East 1 with Docker CE 17.03 installed. To confirm the new AMI is now available, I will use the AWS CLI to examine the resulting AMI:

aws ec2 describe-images \
  --filters Name=tag-key,Values=ami Name=tag-value,Values=ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base \
  --query 'Images[*].{ID:ImageId}'

Resulting output:

{
    "Images": [
        {
            "VirtualizationType": "hvm",
            "Name": "ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base 1488747081",
            "Tags": [
                {
                    "Value": "ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base",
                    "Key": "ami"
                }
            ],
            "Hypervisor": "xen",
            "SriovNetSupport": "simple",
            "ImageId": "ami-e9ca6eff",
            "State": "available",
            "BlockDeviceMappings": [
                {
                    "DeviceName": "/dev/sda1",
                    "Ebs": {
                        "DeleteOnTermination": true,
                        "SnapshotId": "snap-048a16c0250ee3227",
                        "VolumeSize": 8,
                        "VolumeType": "gp2",
                        "Encrypted": false
                    }
                },
                {
                    "DeviceName": "/dev/sdb",
                    "VirtualName": "ephemeral0"
                },
                {
                    "DeviceName": "/dev/sdc",
                    "VirtualName": "ephemeral1"
                }
            ],
            "Architecture": "x86_64",
            "ImageLocation": "931066906971/ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base 1488747081",
            "RootDeviceType": "ebs",
            "OwnerId": "931066906971",
            "RootDeviceName": "/dev/sda1",
            "CreationDate": "2017-03-05T20:53:41.000Z",
            "Public": false,
            "ImageType": "machine",
            "Description": "ubuntu-xenial-docker-ce-base AMI"
        }
    ]
}

Finally, here is the new AMI as seen in the AWS EC2 Management Console:

EC2 Management Console - AMI

Terraform

To confirm Docker CE is installed and running, I can provision a new EC2 instance, using HashiCorp Terraform. This post is too short to detail all the Terraform code required to stand up a complete environment. I’ve included the complete code in the GitHub repo for this post. Not, the Terraform code is only used to testing. No security, including the use of a properly configured security groups, public/private subnets, and a NAT server, is configured.

Below is a greatly abridged version of the Terraform code I used to provision a new EC2 instance, using Terraform’s aws_instance resource. The resulting EC2 instance should have Docker CE available.

# test-docker-ce instance
resource "aws_instance" "test-docker-ce" {
  connection {
    user        = "ubuntu"
    private_key = "${file("~/.ssh/test-docker-ce")}"
    timeout     = "${connection_timeout}"
  }

  ami               = "ami-e9ca6eff"
  instance_type     = "t2.nano"
  availability_zone = "us-east-1a"
  count             = "1"

  key_name               = "${aws_key_pair.auth.id}"
  vpc_security_group_ids = ["${aws_security_group.test-docker-ce.id}"]
  subnet_id              = "${aws_subnet.test-docker-ce.id}"

  tags {
    Owner       = "Gary A. Stafford"
    Terraform   = true
    Environment = "test-docker-ce"
    Name        = "tf-instance-test-docker-ce"
  }
}

By using the AWS CLI, once again, we can confirm the new EC2 instance was built using the correct AMI:

aws ec2 describe-instances \
  --filters Name='tag:Name,Values=tf-instance-test-docker-ce' \
  --output text --query 'Reservations[*].Instances[*].ImageId'

Resulting output looks good:

ami-e9ca6eff

Finally, here is the new EC2 as seen in the AWS EC2 Management Console:

EC2 Management Console - EC2

SSHing into the new EC2 instance, I should observe that the operating system is Ubuntu 16.04.2 LTS and that Docker version 17.03.0-ce is installed and running:

Welcome to Ubuntu 16.04.2 LTS (GNU/Linux 4.4.0-64-generic x86_64)

 * Documentation:  https://help.ubuntu.com
 * Management:     https://landscape.canonical.com
 * Support:        https://ubuntu.com/advantage

  Get cloud support with Ubuntu Advantage Cloud Guest:
    http://www.ubuntu.com/business/services/cloud

0 packages can be updated.
0 updates are security updates.

Last login: Sun Mar  5 22:06:01 2017 from <my_ip_address>

ubuntu@ip-<ec2_local_ip>:~$ docker --version
Docker version 17.03.0-ce, build 3a232c8

Conclusion

Docker EE and CE represent a significant step forward in expanding Docker’s enterprise-grade toolkit. Replacing or installing Docker EE or CE on your AWS AMIs is easy, using Docker’s guide along with HashiCorp Packer.

All source code for this post can be found on GitHub.

All opinions in this post are my own and not necessarily the views of my current employer or their clients.

, , , , , , , , , , ,

2 Comments