Skip to main content

Rebuilding a Modern Datacenter

If you had to build a new and modern small enterprise datacenter what would you do? VMware, OpenStack, or baremetal with containers, appscale, appengine, heroku, cloud foundry ...?

I like VMware because it's rock solid. As a company they seem responsive and proactive. If you install VMware on trusted ready hardware then things just work. Unfortunately things also get expensive. There are also a few failures there too. For example VMware's orchestration does not like chatty systems as it favors long running and casual deploys.

I cannot say enough bad things about OpenStack. In the end mgmt was drawn to it because it was a shiney new and presented as free alternative to VMware. In the end it was not free and might cost as much if not more when you consider it's new and the chex-mix of the IT world. Someone always spits out the peanuts.
And yet you have to support it all. OPS people might not have been drawn to it at first but then after all that time spent learning and creating tools they have a vested interest in it's success. Kinda like agile consultants.

Containers are the new kid on the block. They are the shiniest of the precious things. The problem is that groups are going in every direction trying to get market share. Kubernetes is interesting as it's part of Google's internals but what is their play?But then again who really needs to get to google scale except google. There are a number of scheduling and orchestration tools out there besides. There are even challengers in the container market from systemd, coreos, nix and docker.

appscale and appenge have a bit of a lockin but adding resources is probably the easiest of the bunch. The number of APIs are limited and the touchpoints between the service and the API is minimal.

And then the others.

What would you do?

Popular posts from this blog

Prometheus vs Bosun

In conclusion... while Bosun(B) is still not the ideal monitoring system neither is Prometheus(P).

TL;DR;

I am running Bosun in a Docker container hosted on CoreOS. Fleet service/unit files keep it running. However in once case I have experienced at least one severe crash as a result of a disk full condition. That it is implemented as part golang, java and python is an annoyance. The MIT license is about the only good thing.

I am trying to integrate Prometheus into my pipeline but losing steam fast. The Prometheus design seems to desire that you integrate your own cache inside your application and then allow the server to scrape the data, however, if the interval between scrapes is shorter than the longest transient session of your application then you need a gateway. A place to shuttle your data that will be a little more persistent.

(1) storing the data in my application might get me started more quickly
(2) getting the server to pull the data might be more secure
(3) using a push g…

Entry level cost for CoreOS+Tectonic

CoreOS and Tectonic start their pricing at 10 servers. Managed CoreOS starts at $1000 per month for those first 10 servers and Tectonic is $5000 for the same 10 servers. Annualized that is $85K or at least one employee depending on your market. As a single employee company I'd rather hire the employee. Specially since I only have 3 servers.

The pricing is biased toward the largest servers with the largest capacities; my dual core 32GB i5 IntelNuc can never be mistaken for a 96-CPU dual or quad core DELL

If CoreOS does not figure out a different barrier of entry they are going to follow the Borland path to obscurity.

Weave vs Flannel

While Weave and Flannel have some features in common weave includes DNS for service discovery and a wrapper process for capturing that info. In order to get some parity you'd need to add a DNS service like SkyDNS and then write your own script to weave the two together.
In Weave your fleet file might have some of this:
[Service] . . . ExecStartPre=/opt/bin/weave run --net=host --name bob ncx/bob ExecStart=/usr/bin/docker attach bob
In sky + flannel it might look like:
[Service] . . . ExecStartPre=docker run -d --net=host --name bob ncx/bob ExecStartPre=etcdctl set /skydns/local/ncx/bob '{"host":"`docker inspect --format '{{ .NetworkSettings.IPAddress }}' bob`","port":8080}' ExecStart=/usr/bin/docker attach bob
I'd like it to look like this:
[Service] . . . ExecStartPre=skyrun --net=host --name bob ncx/bob ExecStart=/usr/bin/docker attach bob
That's the intent anyway. I'm not sure the exact commands will work and that's partly why we…