I am using Elastic Beanstalk for its load-balancing and auto-scaling features. However, I am deploying a Linux binary, so I do not need .NET, Node.js, JVM, etc. My understanding is that these slow down deployments, so I would prefer not to use them at all.
I am currently using Node.js, but is it possible to use Elastic Beanstalk without any run-time?
Check out Beanstalk's custom platforms feature. Basically, custom platforms are a way of using your own Amazon Machine Image (AMI) to create Beanstalk environments with. For your purpose, it sounds like what you could do is create a base AMI, perhaps with the necessary Linux binaries installed especially if they are going to be static over time.
The advantage, of course, is that you don't need expensive runtimes/unnecessary configurations.
Here's an example of a custom platform.
Related
Hello to everyone who is viewing this question.
I am currently running a web-application server, which only does CRUD operation (using MySQL) for android and iOS mobile applications. Current server is written in Java, which is using Spring-MVC, a Spring legacy project.
I saw lots of posts describing Pros and Cons of Spring-MVC and Node.js.
In my case, I dont use Server-Template-Engines because I only do CRUD operations that mobile applications need as I wrote above.
My final question is, is it more efficient to use Node.js in my case?
Also, I happen to be entirely new to Node.js, and I am currently running my Spring-MVC by installing tomcat8 on AWS Linux.
I would like to clarify that Spring is a Framework and NodeJS is a JavaScript runtime. Having said that I can understand why people like to compare both. Sprint implements many features that make Java easier to use and more like NodeJS.
Spring has many libs that hide the fact that it's multi-threaded (using thread pools and the further design pattern). And not worrying about threads is one of the most powerful features for rapid development.
is it more efficient to use Node.js in my case?
I would say no. I can't say that refactoring your application as-is to NodeJS will improve your situation in any impactful way (Unless there are additional requirements).
Also, I happen to be entirely new to Node.js, and I am currently running my Spring-MVC by installing tomcat8 on AWS Linux.
The one real difference between both approaches is the deployment. As you mentioned Sprint needs to be deployed on an already running server (Tomcat or Apache) where NodeJS (HTTP server modules) approach is that the application is the server as well (more like Spring-Boot)
I love NodeJS and will highly recommend it due to its fantastic community (NPM is full of grate modules) but if you like to continue developing in Java I think Spring-Boot is the way to go.
Allows you can take a look at the following Nodejs frameworks to get a better idea of development env:
LoopBack
NestJS
I'm new to the whole cloud concept.
I have set up a Windows VM with GCE, remote desktopped into it, installed Apache HTTPD and set the firewall rules, turning this Google GCE into a web server. I intend to install Perl, which is my primary programming language and isn't supported in App Engine.
I am looking for an alternative to my current hosting solution for better uptime and availability, or at least a fall-back service.
Is it recommended to use GCE in this way or am I barking up the wrong tree?
GCE is a very general solution, you can use your VM for whatever purpose you want. In particular GCE is recommended for all workloads that do not fit in the rather strict limitations of App Engine.
Having said that, web hosting was probably the first and main use case for GCE when it was being implemented. On top of having a single VM serving your traffic you can trivially scale your solution up by using load balancers and/or autoscaling. On top of that you can use a managed DB if your web server needs storage, etc. So the answer is, yes, GCE is definitely designed to be used as a web server.
I have a publicly accessed database on RDS that works like a charm from Netbeans. I would like to deploy my Java application on AWS. What is the simplest way to do this? I will only use the application for some very basic tasks, getting used to cloud computing working on a small scale. Is EC2 my best bet and is it possible to upload apps as easily as with the Google App Engine plugin. Can I use the same jdbc driver as I use locally, and can I use JPA against the database? I would rather not use Eclipse for now as I am in a bit of a hurry and need to get this working as soon as possible.
This is a lot of questions for one question, but I'll see if I can help you out.
1. Simplest Way to deploy to AWS
If this application is as simple as you say it is, the most cost effective solution while you're getting used to AWS will be to deploy to a micro instance and take advantage of the free tier. From Amazon:
AWS Free Tier includes 750 hours of Linux and Windows Micro Instances each month for one year. To stay within the Free Tier, use only EC2 Micro instances.
The simplest way to deploy directly from Netbeans is to use the integrated Elastic Beanstalk support. This saves you from having to configure things yourself.
Another option is to launch a Ubuntu AMI and install Tomcat. Create a WAR file from your application and place it where Tomcat can find it. I suggest using the first method.
2. Is EC2 my best bet?
This is a little open ended. For a nice learning experience as you get accustomed to AWS, the free tier for EC2 is a nice platform to learn with. If your application needs to eventually scale, using EBS is a pretty simple way to manage an application. My answer is an opinion because "best bet" depends solely on the requirements of your application, but I say yes.
3. Is it possible to upload apps as easily as with the Google App Engine plugin?
For simple applications I think so. I think it's even easier if you switch to Eclipse and use the toolkit for AWS. Whether Google App Engine or AWS is easier for you will once again depend on personal preference, the application, and your requirements.
4. Can I use the same JDBC driver as I use locally?
If you're using MySQL Connector/J then yes. Read this to understand how it works with RDS.
5. Can I use JPA against the database?
Yes. You'll change the endpoint from localhost to the endpoint of your RDS instance.
6. I would rather not use Eclipse for now...
Another personal preference, but the AWS toolkit for Eclipse is very easy to use and can speed the process up a bit.
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.
We have a Java EE application (EAR file deployed on JBoss, MySQL, MongoDB) which we would like to deploy on an Amazon EC2 instance. I have several questions regarding deployment best practices.
What is the most commonly used Linux AMI which we can rely on for a robust deployment (There are so many Linux variants, and I am not sure which AMI is commonly used, is it Fedora, CentOS, Red Hat, SUSE ...)
How do we handle production upgrades (EAR file modifications or schema upgrades). Are there any tools which are available to handle this installation or rollback of these changes.
What kind of data backup capability is available for the database?
Should I rely on Amazon RDS for MySQL support?
How should I handle support for MongoDB?
This is the first time, I am hosting an web-app and would appreciate some inputs on how to manage the production instance.
I agree with Mark Robinson's answer: Use whichever Unix variant you're most comfortable with. It may pay to pick one with decent cloud support. For my site I use Ubuntu.
I have a common image which is the base of every version deploy I do. I have www.mysite.com pointing to an Elastic IP so I can decide which instance it goes to. The common image has all the software I need installed (Postgres/Postgis/Tomcat/etc) but the database and web server data folders and symlinked to Elastic Block Store (EBS) instances.
When it comes time to do a deploy I start a new instance up, freeze and snapshot the EBS volumes on production and make new volumes. I point my new instance at the new volumes and then install whatever I need to onto that. Once I've smoke tested everything successfully I can switch the Elastic IP to point to the new instance and everything keeps on going.
I'll note that I currently have the advantage where only I can modify the database; no users can. This will become a problem shortly.
If you use the XFS filesystem on top of the EBS volume then you can tell XFS to freeze the file system (so no updates happen) then call the EC2 api to snapshot the volume then unfreeze the file system. The result is that the snapshot is taken quickly and sent to S3. I have a nightly script which does this.
If RDS looks like it will suit your needs then use it. Amazon is building lots of solid tools quickly and this will ease your scalability issues if you have any.
I'm sorry, I have no idea.
Good question!
1) I would recommend going with whatever Linux variant you are most comfortable with. If you have someone who is really keen on CentOS, go with that. Once you have selected your AMI, take it and customize it by configuring how you want it. Then save that AMI as you base-layout. It will make rolling out new machines much easier and save your bacon if EC2 goes down.
2) Upgrades with EC2 can be tres cool. Instead of upgrading a live system, take your pre-configured AMI, update that and save that AMI as myAMI-1.1 (or whatever). That way, you can flip over to the new system almost instantly AND roll back to a previous version in case something breaks. You can also back-up DB instances to S3. It's cheap at about $0.10/GB/Month.
3) It depends where you are storing your DB. If you are storing it on your EC2 instance you are in trouble. The EC2 instances have no persistence storage. So if your machine crashes, you lose everything. I'm not familiar with Amazon DB system but you should also look into Elastic Block Store. It's basically an actual hard-drive you can write to. When you want to upgrade your schema, do a full DB dump to S3 and then do an upgrade of your actual schema. If something goes wrong, you can pull the previous version out of S3.
4) & 5) I have never used those so I can't help you.
What is the most commonly used Linux AMI which we can rely on for a robust deployment (There are so many Linux variants, and I am not sure which AMI is commonly used, is it Fedora, CentOS, Red Hat, SUSE ...)
How do we handle production upgrades (EAR file modifications or schema upgrades). Are there any tools which are available to handle this installation or rollback of these changes.
What kind of data backup capability is available for the database?
Should I rely on Amazon RDS for MySQL support?
How should I handle support for MongoDB?
Any Linux AMI will do the job, what you need is a JRE only. (assuming development work not required). If you need to monitor the JVM behavior then get JConsole installed.
Easiest and painless way is to SSH into the local home directory, transfer the updated class file/EAR file (depends the number of changes applied) and copy and replace into the Tomcat deployment directory, restart apache. (make sure you tested locally before upload to production).
Depends on which database you are using, if you are using MySQL then just do scheduled backup that writes to your home directory so that from time to time you could SSH in and download a copy for backup purpose.
I would not consider reply on Amazon RDS for MySQL support due to 2 reasons: MySQL is small enough and manageable, and also I would want to have total complete control of the database and why pay for more when you can do it yourself FOC?
The usage of MongoDB should be align with the purpose of your application and benefits you gain from that. I would recommend you use MongoDB for static data retrieval like state, country, area etc... where MySQL to be use for transaction data only.
If you can live with deploying your Java EE application on TomEE instead of JBoss, Boxfuse does what you want.
For you Java EE application you literally only have to execute (TomEE uses war files instead of ear files):
boxfuse run my-tomee-app-1.0.war -env=prod
This will
Create AMI containing TomEE and your application ready to boot
Create an Elastic IP or ELB
Create a security group with the correct ports defined
Create an auto-scaling group
Launch your instance(s)
Any subsequent update will be done as a zero downtime blue/green deployment.
More info: https://boxfuse.com/blog/javaee-aws