I have a load balanced EB environment, running a PHP application on an Apache server.
We have successfully deployed the identical software to a test environment in this AWS account, as a pre-production test. This went as expected, and updated the sortware with each CLI deployment.
I cloned this environment in order to deploy the production instance. Generally, deploying the application via EB CLI results in a healthy instance. I say generally because occasionally this shows as degraded - to fix this, I select the latest application version and deploy it to the instance via the admin interface. This feels like a workaround because the console already shows the correct version as the one deployed.
The problem I am having now is in changing the environment variables, to point to the production database. When I change this via the configuration>software section, no changes are stored. When I hit 'apply' the environment starts to transition. When this is complete, the instance health has degraded and the changes made to the configuration are not persisted.
I don't really see a pattern here, and it's behaving in a way that differs from the way the test instance did - I had no problems there.
Any suggestions on how to get past this?
Related
I'm struggling with finding out how to properly test stuff on my local PC and then transfer that over to production.
So here is my situation:
I got a project in NodeJS/typescript, and I'm using Prisma in it for managing my database. On my server I just run a MySQL database, and for testing on my PC I always just used SQLite.
But now that I want to use Prisma Migrate (because it's highly recommended to do so in production) I can't because I use different databases on my PC vs on my Server. Now here comes my question, what is the correct way to test with a database during development?
Should I just connect to my server and make a test database there? Use VS Code's SSH coding function to code directly on the server and connect to the database? Install MySQL on my PC? Like, what's the correct way to do it?
Always use the same brand and same version database in development and testing that you will eventually deploy to. There are compatibility differences between brands, i.e. an SQL query that works on SQLite does not necessarily work the same on MySQL, and vice-versa. Even data types and schema definitions aren't all the same between different SQL products.
If you use different SQL databases in development and production, you will waste a bunch of time and increase your gray hair debugging problems in production, as you insist, "it works on my machine."
This is avoidable!
When I develop on my local computer, I usually have an instance of MySQL Server running in a Docker container on my laptop.
I assume any test data on my laptop is temporary. I can easily recreate schema and data at any time, using scripts that are checked into my source control repo, so I don't worry about losing any data. In fact, I feel no hesitation to drop it and recreate it several times a week.
So if I need to upgrade the local database version to match an upgrade on production, I just delete the Docker container and its data, pull the new Docker image version, initialize a new data dir, and reload my test data again.
Every step is scripted, even the Docker pull.
The caveat to my practice is that you can't necessarily duplicate the software if you use cloud databases, for example Amazon Aurora. There's no way to run an Aurora-compatible instance on your laptop (and don't believe the salespeople that Aurora is fully compatible with MySQL; it's not). So you could run a small Aurora instance in a development VPC and connect to that from your app development environment. At least if your internet connection is reliable enough.
By the way, a similar rule applies to all the other technology you use in development. The version of Node.js, Prisma, other NPM dependencies, http and cache servers, etc. Even the operating system might be the source of compatibility issues, but you may have to develop in a Virtual Machine to match the OS to production exactly.
At one past job, I did help the developer team create what we called the "golden image" which was a pre-configured VM with all our software dependencies installed, and we used this golden image for both the developer sandbox VM, and also an AMI from which we launched the production Amazon EC2 instances. So all the developers were guaranteed to have a test environment that matched production exactly. After that, if they had code problems, they could fix it in development and have a much higher confidence it would work after deploying to production.
I'm trying to set up a Staging VM for a site that's in production that I have just inherited. The site is running Wordpress/Woocommerce and has not been updated in a while. The VM it's hosted on is running an old version of PHP. Obviously, this all needs to be fixed up but I'm unfamiliar with GCP Compute Engine. Also any attempt to run backup/clone plugins crashes the site and requires a restore from the daily snapshot which is very annoying.
Is it possible to clone the VM/disk to a new instance, point that at a temporary domain, and test/update the site? I have been trying to do this for a while now without much luck any suggestions would be much appreciated. Thanks.
Creating a clone of an existing VM is possible and quite easy.
Create a snapshot of the VM. If possible stop the VM before doing this to ensure 100% accuracy - this way you will have exact snapshot of the drive without any errors. You can do it while the VM is running too if stopping it is out of the question.
Create a VM from the shapshot - select as a boot disk a snapshot that you've just created. Remember to assign a static public IP to this VM (unless you want it changed after VM restart and since you're going to do some configuration this would likely happen). You can change the VM's specs at this time too - nothing stops you from adding/removing CPU's, RAM etc. It may well be that your VM is underutilised and you can use something smaller to save costs. Or the opposite.
Start the machine. Now you can modify your WP configuration to point to a new domain. Depending on the SSL certificate - you can either use external one or the one provided by GCP (most convinient solution).
If you already own a domain you want to use for staging you can host it in Cloud DNS or at some other provider - just point it to the external IP you just reserved.
If you will be hosting your domain in the Cloud DNS then you will find necessary infomration in the documentation about managed zones (domains).
You can also consider creating a new VM and setting it as a template for creating a group of VM's (managed autoscaled group) and creating an external HTTPS load balancer in front of it. But this adds a little to the complexity so it's just my idea if you needed to handle a lot more traffic.
I am using free plan from Openshift Paas for my applications. I want to set up openshift environment on my local machine so that I don't have any issues while setting up my app on live environment. I will configure the app on local and then push the code to production server, i.e the Openshift server.
Is it possible with the free plan? I am sure you can set up the Openshift Origin on your local machine using Vagrant/Docker but I have a doubt, if I will be able to push my changes on server using it?
Using your Vagrant/Docker instance on your local machine, you will be able to tie that to Github and you can pull from there. Since your local machine's IP is unlikely to be exposed on the internet, Github cannot see you: so the webhook from Github will not work to trigger automatic re-builds.
Still, that's probably a minor thing if you are just experimenting. With a few clicks, you can go to the build and click to re-build.
What are the advantages we get by using Elastic Beanstalk over maually creating EC2 instance and setting up tomcat server and deploy etc for a typical java web applicaion. Are load balancing, Monitoring and autoscaling the only advantages?
Suppose for my web application which uses database I installed the database in the EC2 instance itself. When Autoscalling takes place will the database gets created in the newly created instance or it will be accessing the database I created in the master instance... If it creates just a replica when autoscaling happens how will be data sync happens between the instances?
All the things you mentioned like load balancing, monitoring and auto-scaling are definitely advantages.
However, you have to kind of think about it this way: In a true Platform as a Service (PAAS), the goal is to separate the application from the platform. As a developer, you only worry about your application. The platform is "rented" to you. The platform "instances" are automatically updated, administered, scaled, balanced, etc. for you. You just upload your WAR file and it just works (at least theoretically).
EC2 by itself is not PAAS. It is more like IAAS (Infrastructure as a Service). You still have to take care of the server instances, install software on them, keep them updated, etc.
Elastic Beanstalk is a PAAS system. So are App Engine and Azure among many others.
In a true PAAS system, the DBMS is a separate component from the web application server(s). The reason is obvious: The DBMS cannot be possibly installed on the instances that are being used for the application server because, as instances are created and destroyed based on your traffic, the DBMS would be lost! Having the DBMS and application server on the same machine/instance is not generally a good idea anyway.
In a PAAS system, the DBMS is a separate service. For Amazon, it would be Amazon RDS. Just like with Elastic Beanstalk, where you don't have to worry about the application server and you just upload your WAR file, with RDS, you don't have to worry about the DBMS and you just deploy your database(s).
Elastic Beanstalk and RDS work very well together, especially when deployed in the same availability zone, where the latency would be very low.
Finally, using Elastic Beanstalk doesn't cost anything more than the deployed resources (EC2 instances and the load balancer). However, RDS is not cheap and would definitely be more expensive than using a single EC2 instance for both the application server and the DBMS.
Elastic Beanstalk does more than just load balancing, monitoring, and autoscaling.
1) Manages application versions by storing and managing different versions of your application, allowing you to easily switch back and forth between different versions of your applications.
2) Has the concept of "environments" for each application, allowing you to deploy different versions of your application in each environment. This is handy for example if you want to set up separate QA and DEV environments, and you want to easily deploy a build first in DEV then deploy the same version of the application in QA when your QA team is ready for the next build.
3) Externalizes the important container configuration properties (Tomcat memory settings, for example) to the Elastic Beanstalk console and API. Because of this you can easily save the settings and copy them between environments.
4) View application log files through the console and automatically roll and archive log files to S3. (Admittedly this feature is currently a little weak.)
I had an app deployed both in EC2 dedicated(Nginx & Gunicorn) and Beanstalk Environment(CentOS & Apache2).
My observations:
BeanStalk is Paas. Manually creating an EC2 instance(IAAS), is like doing everything from scratch, but you have solid control.
BeanStalk comes with by default CentOS and Apache(Httpd). You could choose OS in dedicated instance.
These things that mattered to me,
There were lots of 504 errors showing up in Beanstalk environment.
It was difficult to debug when BeanStalk server crashed, as logs would also not show up and could not ssh into machine. This is very important.
Installing/configuring tools like Celery, Redis (need to run another port) etc.,. in dedicated instance is lot more easier.
In my case, I had to scale up (Beanstalk)server in order to run installation of some packages(like pandoc). These things are more simpler in Ubuntu.
Scaling is a lot more easier in BeanStalk. Cloning servers is straightforward in BeanStalk.
I had taken micro in both the cases (dedicated & Beanstalk). I felt dedicated micro instance was better.
Automated deployment in Beanstalk. I had to write scripts to automate the same, which is fine, since it is only once.
I am using Intellij IDEA to develop my applications and I use glassfish for my applications.
When I want to run/debug my application I can configure it from Glassfish Server -> Local and define arguments at there. However there is another section instead of Glassfish Server, there is a Remote section for configuration. I can easily configure and debug my application just defining host and port variables.
So my question is why to need for Glassfish Server Local configuration(except for when defining extra parameters) and what is difference between them(I mean performance or etc.)?
There are a number of development work-flow optimizations and automation that can be performed by an IDE when it is working with a local server. I don't have a strong background in IDEA, so I am not sure which of the following they may have implemented:
using in-place|exploded|directory deployment can eliminate jar/war/ear creation in the IDE and deconstruction in the server. This can be a significant time saver.
linked to 1 is smarter redeployment. In some cases, a file change (like changing a jsp or an html file) does not need to trigger redeployment.
JDBC driver integration allows users to configure their IDE to access a DB and then propagates that configuration (which usually includes driver jars, etc.) into the server's classpath as part of deployment of an app.
access to server log files during deployment and execution.
The ability to start and stop the server... even today, you do need to restart GlassFish sometimes.
view the generated Java sources of a JSP.
Most of these features are not available with a remote server and that has a negative effect on iterative development since the break between edit and validate can be fairly long.
This answer is based on my familiarity with the work that we have done for the NetBeans/GlassFish integration. The guys at IntelliJ are smart, so I would not be surprised if they have other features that are available when you are working with a local server.
Local starts Glassfish for you and performs the deployment. With Remote you start Glassfish manually. Remote can be used to debug apps running on another machines, Local is useful for development and testing.