I hava scenario like this:
I have applications A,B,C,D..., and I hava physical machines M,N,O,P,Q...
I use byon to manage physical machine, because the physial machine is "strong", so I want to deploy several application on it, so I set the SLA is global, at this time I have a question: when application A is deployed on machine M, I deploy other application B,C,D...,whether application A,B,C,D...will install on M machine only, rather than install on machine N,O,P,Q...(in this case, the host A's pressure will be very large.)
Is this problem exist, if exists, how to resolve it? thank you very much!
It's possible to limit the number of services on a specific machine by specifying the memory required for each service. As part of the global isolation SLA You can set the amount of memory required by each service, so when there isn't enough memory left on the machine - the next one will be used.
The syntax is:
isolationSLA {
global {
instanceCpuCores 0
instanceMemoryMB 128 // each instance needs 128MB allocated for it on the VM.
useManagement true // Enables installing services on the management server. Defaults to false.
}
Please note that the above code also allows services to be installed on the management machine itself, which you can set to false.
A more detailed explanation is available here, under "Isolation SLA".
Related
I am using a vps for my website so I don't believe I can access it from the local network or something.
I am using digitalocean as a vps.
So where should I install tools like ab, siege, jmeter etc. , locally on the vps / on my own computer (client) / on another droplet(vps) in the same region and connect to the web server droplet via private network?
From my understanding if I use those tools on the vps itself, they might use too much of the cpu and ram (same cpu and ram the web server uses) for the test to be correct.
On the other hand testing remotely might end up with bad values because of network bottleneck. Is this the case if I use another vps on the same subnet (digitalocean private network function for example)?
I am lost, both solutions seem wrong so what am I missing?
The best option is to install the load generator on another VPS residing in the same subnet as the application under test - this way you will be able to get more "clean" results not impacted by connect times / latency
Having both application under test and the load generator at the same machine is not recommended as load testing tools themselves are very resource intensive and you may run into the situation when both applications are "struggling" for resources hence load generator is not capable of sending requests fast enough and application under test cannot handle requests properly. In general it is recommended to keep an eye on resources consumption by the application under test/load generators in order to ensure that both have enough headroom, you will also be able to correlate increasing number of virtual users with increased resources consumption. You can use an APM tool or alternatively JMeter PerfMon Plugin if you don't have any alternatives in place.
As a fallback you can use your local machine for testing, however make sure that you have enough bandwidth (you can check it using i.e. https://www.speedtest.net/ service) and your ISP is aware of your plans and won't block you for the fraudulent action (as it might be considered a DOS attack)
We get good results using Unix machines from Amazon Webservices as load generator. You get not such a clean result like Dimitri mentioned, when the load generator is located in the same network. But you get a realistic result, like the enduser will get it too. With our scenario we evaluate some key values during execution like CPU, DB connections and amount of changed data sets in db during test. We repeat the test several times because there is always some variance in the result. The loadtest in the same network will deliver more stable results and can be compared to a measurement in a laboratory, but I think it is very good to know how your application behave in reality.
If not use simulator or devstack, but use real production cluster, very necessary need will cost how many hosts(or nodes)?
CloudStack: 2 (management-servers and DBs) + 2 (Hypervisors) + 1 Storage(If you do not have a Storage Device, maybe you need a server for NFS or iSCSI)
Total: 5 servers for a minimal environment with load-balance and HA.
OpenStack: It depends on the component you have chosen. Every component can be installed in the right one server. But you need one more server for load-balance and HA.
Total: 2 servers for a minimal environment with load-balance and HA.
When planning a cloud platform, the total resource = ManagementServer*2 + Hypervisor*N + Storage(Server Or Storage Device)
Hypervisor number is the total cpus and memorys of how much vms you planned to run.
Storage is how much volumes you want to allocate for all vms.
For Cloudstack, unlike OpenStack, you can use just one physical machine or server for the installation of both the management server as well as agent (for execution of VMs) and yes, the database and NFS shares can be set up on the same machine too (assuming you need it for testing purpose).
You can follow the quick installation guide of Cloudstack here: http://docs.cloudstack.apache.org/projects/cloudstack-installation/en/4.11/qig.html
I have personally installed using the above documentation and can assure you the above works fine with CentOS 7.4 too. For more complex setup and architecture you can find more documentation here: http://docs.cloudstack.apache.org. Just be sure to have some free IPs available ;)
I'm writing a Qt/C++ application and i plan to add a network part with socket connection to a server implemented in Qt also.
If i host locally the server there is no real problem.
But if i want to share my application (client part) with some people and then be sure my server is always running, the best way would be to have a distant server.
Could you give me some clue to do it ? It's not still clear for me for steps to follow in this case.
Is it a better way for that ?
Can i find free hosting ?
Thanks a lot! :-)
There are generally 3 options:
1. Local hosting
This is server running at Your physical location. You can set it clearly as You want and the server will do whatever You want. But must be turned on the whole time, when there is no other work it will just consume power. Also You must get all the hardware (server components), software for running (Operation system), network device and connection (some router, which needs to have special set-up [NAT, port-forward, ...], speed and reachability of the internet connection) and most likely also some security device/SW (firewalls or so).
This is best idea for basic developement and testing. But once the service should work for public audience, it is not really worth to run server Yourself.
2. Remote hosting (virtualized or dedicated server)
This option was the top in last 20-30 years, where all the Web developers and App developers were putting their software on some prepared server. Dedicated is physical server running at some providers' location, who are lending You the hardware (and maybe some license for OS/other SW). Virtualized machine is just 1 hardware piece (server) with multiple virtual servers on it (more clients running on same hardware).
This got generally benefits as the networking/security/hardware issues are being carried out by the hosting owner. You are just borrowing some diskspace and computer time/performance. Normally the company will provide whole server, on which You can set up several services, run multiple protocols, etc..
Ideal solution for webs and single/few (not much) instances of server application(s).
3. Cloud hosting
This is the newest technology at the moment (alive around 10-15 years [eg. AWS running since 2006, Azure since 2010]). Datacenter owners (from 2. point) get better and created some applications on the servers, which will do all the work for You (mostly automatically). In few clicks the servers are running and application can be deployed, used database engines, web pages, IOT hubs, ... quite lot of stuff. Benefits are clearly that You just have to spent minimum of time to set up things and they will run. With high uptime (eg.: 99.9995%).
Difference between dedicated & cloud: On dedicated server there can be put almost any OS which fits the needs, run just services You want, have full control. In cloud solution, You don't have so much of "physical" control and the data moreless live somewhere in Datacenters all over the world. But generally it is more scalable solution and once Your app will be used by lot of users from public sector, this is best way to go.
Common ideology:
The most common solution is that when You develop, You create local server on which You deploy, test, improve. Once stable, order a server either on cloud or as dedicated/virtual machine and deploy it there. Some developers knows that their App will run on cloud services from the very beggining so they order it and start developing against it, but in most cases there is no need for that.
I'm reading some OpenStack material recently, but didn't get a chance to try yet. I got the sense that Openstack could management a large number of virtual machines via API or dashboard interface. User could easily create/start virtual machines.
Then I come out a confusion. As the underlying computer hardware might vary, some computer maybe only able to host one virtual machine, some maybe ten. When user start a virtual machine, does user manually or Openstack automatically designate a hardware computer to host the virtual machine? In either case, how to decide the hardware computer's capacity? Does Openstack provide the functionality to set capacity attribute of hardware computer?
When you run OpenStack, each physical machine (which OpenStack calls compute hosts) will periodically report how many CPUs it has and how much RAM it has, as well as how many CPUs and how much RAM have been allocated to virtual machines that are currently running.
The OpenStack scheduler uses this information to determine which compute host to run a VM on. First, it checks to see if a host has enough CPUs (by applying the CoreFilter) and enough RAM (by applying the RamFilter). Compute hosts that don't have enough CPUs or RAM available won't even be considered.
Once it has a set of candidate hosts that have enough CPU and RAM, the scheduler needs to pick one of them. By default, the scheduler will use a "spread-first" strategy, allocating VMs to machines that have the most amount of CPU/RAM that isn't currently allocated to VM. It's possible to change this strategy to a "fill-first" behavior, so that the compute host with the least amount of free resources will get allocated first. This is configured by setting the nova.scheduler.least_cost.compute_fill_first_cost_fn parameter.
For more information, see the chapter on scheduling in the OpenStack Compute Admin guide.
At one of our client's site we have the following topology of BizTalk 2006 in production environment:
2 BizTalk Runtime servers
1 SQL Server with MsgBox and TrackingDB on it.
One of the runtime servers are dedicated physical server and the another is virtual server, though both have 4 CPUs and 8Gb of memory.
The physical server CPU is hardly in use while the virtual server is always on 50% - 60% of CPU usage.
Is there any way to configure the BizTalk load balancing algorithm in such a way that it would load on one server more than on the other?
Yes and no is the accurate answer :-)
Given one host, with one instance on each server, BizTalk would apply a simple round-robin approach to load balancing; as a service (orchestration or pipeline) is tied to a host the answer would be that for a single service it is not possible to assign more "weight" for a particular server -load would be spread evenly between the instances.
However, if you have multiple services, and it makes sense, you could distribute some of them exclusively to the physical box while some to both; this would mean that the physical box would take more load compare to the virtual one.
Obviously - on a two servers configuration - it does mean you lose redundancy though, a decision I would have not taken lightly so I would recommend against it.
(having said that - you say you have one SQL box, so perhaps redundancy is not a major issue?)
Also, if you're doing HTTP receives, check the donfiguration of your web load balancer. It maybe preferring one server over the other based on its configuration.
Another suggestion would be to disable the host instances on the VM and run primarily off of the physicaL box. If the physical box goes down, set up a MOM alert or such to kick off a script to start up the VMs host instances. We do something like this for FTP receives in our cluster.