elastic kubernetes service on Digi Hunch

Workload Identity on Kubernetes 2 of 2 – EKS

Mon, 08 Jan 2024 00:05:00 -0400

I discussed in my previous post on workload identity and dived into how it works in AKS (Azure Kubernetes Service). In this post I will continue the topic with AWS as the example. From the perspective of CSP, we consider any running process on the cloud resource as workload. Therefore, I’ll start with control plan and node identities. From the perspective of a Kubernetes platform, the term workload mostly refers to applications running in Pods. So later in this article I’ll distinguish two mechanisms for Pod Identity: IRSA and EKS Pod Identity.

EKS Control Plane and Node Identity

AWS directly associate an IAM role with EKS control plane and an IAM role with each node group. We don’t need an extra step of assigning a “managed identity” (as in Azure) to a cluster or to a node group ( and then bind a role to the identity). You can find this pattern from Terraform code. Each aws_eks_node_group resource has a node_role_arn attribute to link to its IAM role, and a cluster_name attribute to link to the cluster. Each aws_eks_cluster resource has a role_arn attribute for cluster’s permission.

The cluster’s IAM role is usually bound to managed policies like AmazonEKSVPCResourceController and AmazonEKSClusterPolicy. The IAM role that is assigned to the node group is the exact IAM role of the instance profile of each node. The kubelet process on the nodes are the main users of this role and the permission should not be broader than what it needs to do. This role usually have a few managed policies such as AmazonEKSWorkerNodePolicy, AmazonEKS_CNI_Policy, AmazonSSMManagedInstanceCore and AmazonEC2ContainerRegistryReadOnly.

The node role applies to self-managed node and managed node. When using Fargate to provide computing capacity, each Fargate profile will use its own IAM role, to connect to the cluster and pull container images. This IAM role is known as Pod Execution Role. For a private cluster, the place to run the command would be a bastion host with connectivity to the cluster’s API endpoint. Refer to this post about the connectivity to private cluster.

IAM Role for Service Account (IRSA)

When AWS launched EKS in 2018, Kiam was a popular open-source project to grant Pods access to AWS resources. In 2019, AWS introduced the official mechanism, IRSA (IAM Role for Service Account). IRSA ties a Kubernetes identity (in the form of Service Account) to an IAM role in AWS. IAM allows creation of web identity based on OIDC. EKS can act as an OIDC issuer.

This requires a few points of configurations, via the cluster API and via cloud the endpoint. The eksctl utility makes it simple with two commands:

$ eksctl utils associate-iam-oidc-provider \
 --cluster $CLUSTER_NAME \
 --approve

$ eksctl create iamserviceaccount \
 --cluster=$CLUSTER_NAME \
 --namespace=kube-system \
 --name=aws-load-balancer-controller \
 --role-name AmazonEKSLoadBalancerControllerRole \
 --attach-policy-arn=arn:aws:iam::112233445566:policy/AWSLoadBalancerControllerIAMPolicy \
 --approve

The first command creates an OIDC web identity integrated with the EKS cluster, and the second creates a Service Account in Kubernetes and links it to the identity, and assign an IAM policy. These two commands must run under certain conditions. The AWS CLI identity for first command requires the the permission to add OIDC provider. The second needs the permission to create an IAM role. In addition, it requires kube API access to the cluster. So the command needs to run from an environment that can access both the cluster’s API and AWS API.

The IAM identity provider is somewhat similar to a managed identity with OIDC federated credential in Azure. However, unlike managed identity, here in AWS we cannot create the OIDC identity until after the cluster creation. In other words, the OIDC web identity’s lifecycle does not decouple with the cluster lifecycle. We have to create a new web identity every time we create a new EKS cluster. In large organizations, the permission to create a new web identity is highly restricted.

EKS Pod Identity

There are a few other limitations with IRSA. As this blog post suggests:

Further, cluster administrators have to update the IAM role trust policy each time the role is used in a new cluster during scenarios like blue-green upgrades or failover testing. Additionally, as customers grow their EKS cluster footprint, due to the per cluster OIDC provider requirement in IRSA, customers run into the per account OIDC provider limit. Similarly, as they scale the number of clusters or Kubernetes namespaces in which an IAM role is used, they run into IAM trust policy size limit, which makes them duplicate the IAM roles to overcome the trust policy size limit.

AWS brings the new mechanism “EKS Pod Identity” at reInvent 2023. In this mechanism, user can hook up an IAM role directly to a Kubernetes service account, without having to resort to a web identity and OIDC integration. Users just need to create a Pod Identity Association, using the CreatePodIdentityAssociation API, with the following parameters:

Cluster name
Namespace
ARN of the IAM role
serviceAccount

Both AWS CLI and ekscli already support the CreatePodIdentityAssociation API. Before creating a Pod Identity Association, we need to install the add-on “Amazon EKS Pod Identity Agent”, and ensure that the node roles have the permission. That is because the agent needs to use AssumeRoleForPodIdentity API. We also need an IAM role, with the trust policy principal being “pods.eks.amazonaws.com” and our own choice of resource tags as condition. Note that another implicit prerequisite is that the programming running in the Pod use a newer version of AWS SDK to access cloud resource.

This blog post has good details, including a diagram and a walk-through.

Comparison

Both EKS Pod Identity and IRSA are here to stay. I’m afraid this is going to create confusions. I put the following table for their comparision:

	IRSA	EKS Pod Identity
Pros	– in use since 2019 – support EKS, EKS-A, ROSA – support all EKS versions	– support role session tags – no dependency on OIDC identity provider – create an IAM role once for all clusters. the role can be created before cluster – cross account access through resource policies and chained AssumeRole operation
Cons	– Cannot create OIDC identity provider, until the cluster is ready – One OIDC provider per cluster, with the risk of hitting quota – Trust policy sprawl as more clusters are created	– the program has to use newer version of SDK. – ony support EKS – Pod Identity Agent (DaemonSet) can’t run on Fargate

Compairing IRSA with EKS Pod Identity

The blog post also contains a long table for their comparison. In the near future, I will have to check the SDK version of a workload in order to assess whether EKS Pod Identity will function. This is a restriction because it depends upon software builder disclosing the SDK version used. The EKS cluster also needs to host daemonSet on a node agent. On the other hand, go with IRSA if portability between EKS and EKS-A and ROSA is of concern, because the IAM service principal pods.eks.amazonaws.com is dedicated to EKS.

The blog post also gives the migration step as follows:

Ensure EKS cluster is above 1.24, and install the add-on for EKS pod identity agent.
Ensure the SDK running in pod meets the version requirement.
Update the IAM role’s trust policy with the new principal “pods.eks.amazonaws.com”

So the EKS Pod Identity mechanism still requires an IAM role. It does not required an OIDC identity. The service account connects to IAM role via an agent on the node.

Summary

A good design concerns not only functionality, but also streamlined configuration experience. EKS Pod Identity is a great improvement over IRSA heading the right direction. It just came out two months ago so still too early to adopt, especially without knowing the workload details. For now I tend to use pod identity as a backup mechanism when IRSA isn’t available for some reason. However, I recommend starting to introduce the Pod Identity mechanism for all new EKS clusters and new workloads.

Kubernetes with Multiple CPU Architectures 2 of 2 – Node and Workload

Sat, 20 May 2023 01:34:00 -0400

The most common server CPU architectures today are amd64 (aka x86_64) and arm64. Although AMD developed the former first, Intel names it as x86_64 (or x64 for short). In terms of compatibility, they are the same. In general, arm64 architecture consumes less power and therefore mobile systems first favour it. Its power efficiency now drives a trend towards computing infrastructure. For example, Apple’s MacBook moved to M1 processor in 2020. Since 2018, Amazon’s Graviton processor has entered the third generation. In 2022, Azure also brought Ampere Altra processor, and GCP introduced ARM based VMs. Less power consumption ultimately leads to less computing cost.

I can only see more workloads gradually move to servers with ARM architecture. With Kubernetes, we will most likely have a fleet of computing node consisting of hybrid CPU architectures. We can take a look at what the arm64 adoption entails for workloads on Kubernetes.

ARM64 architecture

Graviton processor is on 64-bit Arm Neoverse cores, targeting for optimizing cloud-native workloads. Currently at AWS, the majority of arm64 instances use Graviton2 processor. This AWS blog posted the news about Graviton3-based general purpose (m7g) and memory-optimized (r7g) EC2 instances. At the bottom, there is a chart that compares the performance of Graviton3 with Graviton2, x86 and M6g instances. We can expect that in a few months the services that supports Graviton2 processor to start supporting Graviton3 processor.

In the serverless landscape, you can specify CPU architecture for Lambda function. If your runtime supports arm64 architecture, you enjoy up to 34% price performance improvement according to this post. In late 2021, AWS Fargate for ECS also started to support Graviton2 Processor with arm64 workload. As to Fargate for EKS, it has not supported Graviton2 processor as of yet, but is on track.

As to Kubernetes, I’ve discussed how to get container registries to support platform-specific images. So we can assume image registries all support OCI format image index(aka fat manifest), which points platform-specific images for arm64 and amd64. In this post, I’ll focus on the node and workload, with EKS as an example. Since control plane is a managed service, we will focus on the worker node, where the Pods are running.

Worker Node

The cloudkube project uses Terraform to build our test EKS cluster. One of the node groups consists of the new m7g.large instance (Graviton3 processor). For this new node group, the AMI type must be AL2_ARM_64, so it picks up an EKS optimized AMI for arm64 during node provisioning. The IAM role of each node has SSM policy so we can use session manager and pre-installed SSM agents to connect to each node. One the m7g node, I would like to check a few things:

The node CPU
The containerd package
The kubelet executable.

They all should be for the right CPU architecture, as the following commands clarifies:

$ lscpu | grep -i arch
Architecture: aarch64
$ yum list | grep containerd
containerd.aarch64 1.6.6-1.amzn2.0.2 @amzn2extra-docker
containerd-stress.aarch64 1.6.8-1.amzn2.0.1 amzn2extra-docker
$ file -b $(which kubelet)
ELF 64-bit LSB executable, ARM aarch64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), BuildID[sha1]=5c7a059f13f8bece4ce30f3357d57631c28bdde2, for GNU/Linux 3.7.0, stripped

We can also check image pulling with containerd. Let’s check what is the correct image first, by examining the image index with manifest-tool:

$ manifest-tool inspect digihunch/colorapp:v0.1

The index in the response tells us that:

the digest of the whole image index starts with 0fa335;
the manifest digest for the arm64 variant starts with 7479df;
the manifest digest for the amd64 variant start with 1bd198;

Now if we use ctr utility to pull image (“sudo ctl pull image”), we can see the correct digest for arm64:

The default behaviour of “ctr image pull” is to pull a platform-specific image, overridable with --platform or --all-platforms. On an amd64 node, I get the corresponding results as well.

Workload

Let’s ensure all workloads in the Namespaces are using correct images. We’ll deploy the colorapp, and then examine that along with some system Pods.

For example, DaemonSet aws-node has one pod per node. To verify the distribution, we can get to pods’ command shell and check CPU architecture with uname command:

$ kubectl -n kube-system get po -l app.kubernetes.io/name=aws-node -o name | xargs -I{} kubectl -n kube-system -c aws-node exec {} -- uname -m

The command above verifies that pods scheduled to arm64 nodes correctly. It does not however, proof that the arm64-specific image is being used. I find it pretty tricky to validate a container is using intended image on arm64 node. I have not found a working kubectl command. There is a plausible tag named imageID under container status. For kube-proxy Pod in kube-system namespace, there are two values. However, for colorapp pods, there is only one value with different format, even though they are scheduled to nodes of both architectures.

$ kubectl -n kube-system get po -l k8s-app=kube-proxy -o yaml | grep 'imageID:' | sort | uniq
 imageID: sha256:04beb3b811d345722d689a70a30bafa27e0edd412613bee76c3648b024b25744
 imageID: sha256:b9b6705d4ad6be861f0e98b7325e5106715ef21a82692f7e8a005a280f159518
$ kubectl -n default get po -l app=color -o yaml | grep 'imageID:' | sort | uniq
 imageID: docker.io/digihunch/colorapp@sha256:0fa335fdbcc3b644d57c8debe075775b19011985b6342adfb430e7011456d12e

This issue reports such inconsistency and the issue unfortunately did not get attention. The reporter also asks to have sha256 of the actual image. However, the Kubernetes developers regard this as an CRI issue. Currently we cannot tell exactly which image is used.

I figured out a workaround, by getting on the node and dump the image on the node:

$ sudo ctr -n k8s.io image list
$ sudo ctr -n k8s.io image export /tmp/x.tar docker.io/digihunch/colorapp@sha256:0fa335fdbcc3b644d57c8debe075775b19011985b6342adfb430e7011456d12e

In the export tar file review the manifest.json file which contains layer digests. We should find these layer digests match those of the platform-specific image’s.

Utilities

Since we can ensure that Pod running on a node can always pull the correct platform-specific image, we do not need to worry about Helm chart. We just need to make sure our container registry references an index digest that points to images of multiple architecture. For the same reason, we do not need to worry about pod autoscaling.

When it comes to node autoscaling, all node should support have kubernetes.io/arch and kubernetes.io/os labels (e.g. Karpenter). However, we generally prefer to expand the arm64 node group since it is cheaper. With cluster autoscaler, we can use priority based expander. With Karpenter, we can set weight so that the provisioner for arm64 node group carries higher weight.

Scheduling

With multi-arch image, the container runtime will pick up the right version of image. From deployment perspective, we do not worry about the difference between nodes in CPU architectures. However, in some use cases, we still want to schedule certain Pods to nodes with one CPU architecture over the other. I call these platform-specific workload.

We mainly needs to control scheduling behaviour. There are two mechanisms, node affinity, and taints & tolerations.

Node Affinity is based on node labeling. From the well-known labels, annotations and taints, all Kubernetes distribution should label their nodes with the kubernetes.io/arch and kubernetes.io/os labels. The value for arch is either arm64 or amd64. When we add a node affinity of requiredDuringSchedulingIgnoredDuringExecution type to Pods, scheduler takes matchExpressions under nodeSelectorTerms into consideration, when placing Pods to Nodes.

When a Pod has lots of nodeSelectorTerms, it can be brain twisting to sort through the logic. In that case we can use Taints and Tolerations. The idea is that once we taint a node, the scheduler will not schedule any Pod to the Node, unless the Pod has a matching Toleration.

In this post, the author customized the bootstrap script so the node provisioning process automatically taints arm64 nodes with arch=arm64:NoSchedule. Otherwise, we can manually taint a node:

$ kubectl get no -o wide # and check KERNEL-VERSION column, taint the ones with aarch64
$ kubectl taint nodes ip-147-207-3-164.us-west-2.compute.internal arch=arm64:NoSchedule

This can be a very useful technique when you’re not sure if every workload image are capable of multi-arch, and you want to avoid scheduling any Pods without tolerations on the arm64 nodes. A Pod cannot get scheduled on those nodes until you confirm their container images, and add corresponding tolerations.

Summary

Given the power efficiency, a lot of workload will gradually migrate to arm64 architecture. However, software will take a while to get ready. For example, hyperkit has not supported M1 processor and I still cannot use it on newer MacOS for Minikube. Hybrid architecture is here to stay and we need to have an end-to-end examination of our supply chain.

EKS impression

Fri, 23 Dec 2022 18:18:19 -0400

I’ve worked on a few AKS projects previously. Since I joined AWS I wanted to put aside some time to check out EKS (Elastic Kubernetes Service). Here in this post, I put down my first impression on EKS, and also share my Terraform template in cloudkube project to create an EKS cluster.

Similar to AKS, EKS exposes API endpoint and the control plane components are hidden from AWS users. When creating EKS cluster it does not create the underlying VPC and subnets. Therefore, you have create an existing VPC and at least two subnets ahead of time, and specify them during EKS creation. Bear in mind that there is a list of requirement for the VPC and subnets.

In the cluster, the CNI that EKS officially supports is Amazon VPC CNI plugin. It is available as an add-on. Similar to Azure CNI, each Pod gets its own IP address. In addition, EKS supports other compatible CNI plugins such as Calico, Cilium, Weave Net and Antrea.

Computing Nodes in EKS

There are three modes to address computing capacity: self-managed nodes, EKS managed node groups and AWS Fargate. The documentation has a comparison table.

With self-managed nodes, users create EC2 instances separately and then register them to the control plane. The instances must use the same IAM role and AMI. You can use Auto Scaling groups of Bottlerocket (AWS-sponsored purpose-built Linux distro for container host) nodes. The self-managed node option is mostly for AWS outpost customers who bring in their own computing capacity from data centre.

If you provision computing capacity from AWS, it makes sense to assign EKS managed node groups when creating EKS cluster. We can turn on Cluster Autoscaler, a Kubernetes construct to manage the auto scaling of node groups. Sometimes we want to have more than one node groups. For example, to build a multi-architecture cluster, we need one node group with amd64 nodes and the other with arm64 nodes (e.g. instances with Graviton processor). In general, arm-based CPU delivers better performance with less power consumption and the industry is slowly moving towards more arm-based CPU architecture.

Fargate is what I call managed computing service for EKS. With Fargate you do not need to tweak Cluster Autoscaler to self-manage computing capacity. The Fargate documentation has a long list of considerations. For example, Pods must match a Fargate profile (here‘s an example) at the time that they’re scheduled to run on Fargate. So we need to build Fargate profile and Pod labelling properly. Also, Fargate does not support DaemonSet. Another big consideration is that Fargate does not support non-VPC CNI. In my opinion these are pretty significant limitations. Many workloads (system-level or application-level) would need Daemonset (e.g. kube-proxy, some CNI or CSI drivers, Dynatrace monitoring).

The pro of Fargate is the serverless computing model. The construct of a Fargate profile isn’t complicated. You just specify subnets, namespace and labels. However, the downside is the long list of considerations. Some teams may consider these restrictions too much. The other overhead is the need to manage Fargate profile to ensure all Pods are scheduled somewhere.

To me, using Fargate alone impairs portability of workload. The good thing is that Fargate and Managed Node Group are not mutually exclusive on a cluster. In most cases, we can go partially serverless, and reap the benefits of both of them.

Node AutoScaling

For workloads that don’t have a matching Fargate profile, we have to figure out node autoscaling ourselves. I touched on Cluster Autoscaler in “Autoscaling on Kubernetes Platform“. CA works on AWS as well and is triggered upon a Pod coming to unschedulable status in Scheduler. There is some limitations though. For example, CA interacts with Autoscaling Group (instead of EC2 instances directly). When it determines it’s time to scale up, it bumps up the desired capacity by one at a time in the Autoscaling group. The configurations in Autoscaling group may also be at play and CA do not have direct control. For example, the “scaling cooldown“. The pool of nodes is homogenous as per the pre-configured launch template and CA has no control. If a Pod requires a different type of node (e.g. ARM64 CPU, spot instance, etc), then we’d first have to create a node group with the desired node type. Moreover, in the worst cases, one-at-a-time scale-up does not meet the increase of demand driven by Pod increases, causing nuances such as racing conditions.

Because the Cluster Autoscaler doesn’t really deal with the nodes themselves, this kind of integration is clunky and slow. Nearly half of Kubernetes customers on AWS report that configuring cluster auto scaling using the Kubernetes Cluster Autoscaler is challenging and restrictive, according to this blog post. As a result, AWS launched an open-source cluster autoscaler project, Karpenter. Karpenter first only supported EKS but now the support includes other CSPs. For EKS, Karpenter directly interact with different types of EC2 instances.

Karpenter makes node scaling work in a more cloud-native manner. In the presence of unschedulable Pods, Karpenter bypasses the Kubernetes scheduler and works directly with the Cloud provider, to launch the minimal compute resources needed to fit those Pods and immediately binds the Pods to the newly provisioned Nodes without waiting for scheduler. As Pods are removed or rescheduled to other nodes, Karpenter looks for opportunities to terminate under-utilized nodes. Karpender defines a CR called Provisioner to specify node provisioning configuration, such as instance size, zone, CPU architecture, etc. It is a manifest that describes a node group so the node scaler is aware of all the available node types. You can have multiple Provisioners for different needs, just like node groups. The Provisioner CR can also set TTL for empty Nodes, such that once a Node has no pods other than DaemonSet, Karpenter will terminate the Node on TTL expiry.

Karpenter’s idea is similar to the idea of AutoPilot cluster in GKE. The new EKS workshop has an section on how to set up CA and Karpenter in practice.

Identity Management for EKS

For IAM, we need to be concerned with three aspects. The management traffic to the cloud service, the management traffic for Kubernetes cluster and business traffic.

Traffic type	AWS	Azure
I. Cloud Service Endpoint (Management Traffic for Cloud Service)	AWS IAM identity	Azure RBAC
II. Kubernetes API (Management Traffic for K8s Cluster)	IAM mapping or OIDC	Azure RBAC (implementation of OIDC)
III. Business traffic	Up to Kubernetes Ingress	Up to Kubernetes Ingress

For business traffic (type III), it is all up to the Ingress. I’ve written another article on managing ingress traffic on Kubernetes platforms. We interact with cloud service endpoint (type II) with either AWS CLI or Terraform, to create any object, including resources needed for a cluster. This is generally how we work with cloud service, not specific to Kubernetes. Usually the IAM identity assumes another IAM role, which empowers it with a lot of permissions.

For access to Kubernetes API (type III), EKS supports OIDC and IAM mapping. AWS documentation refers to this as “Cluster Authentication“. There is one special scenario where your identity for type II access inherits your identity for type I access. As the document puts:

When you create an Amazon EKS cluster, the AWS Identity and Access Management (IAM) entity user or role, such as a federated user that creates the cluster, is automatically granted system:masters permissions in the cluster’s role-based access control (RBAC) configuration in the Amazon EKS control plane. This IAM entity doesn’t appear in any visible configuration, so make sure to keep track of which IAM entity originally created the cluster.

This special scenario (I call it the “implicit master user“) allows us to perform critical activities on the cluster, such as creating IAM mapping, or OIDC configuration.

The above addressed how AWS resource access Kubernetes resource. On the other hand, to address how a Kubernetes resource access AWS resources, we need IRSA (IAM Roles for Service Account). We have a service account in Kubernetes and map it to an IAM role.

AppMesh

AppMesh is AWS’ Envoy based service-mesh offering supporting Kubernetes cluster, ECS service and even EC2 instance. AppMesh’s control plane is a managed AWS service, with a controller running on the Kubernetes cluster. To install AppMesh on the cluster:

On the EKS cluster, install AppMesh Controller using Helm
Associate the cluster with IAM OIDC provider
Create an IAM role for the appmesh-controller service account

After these steps, you can create a mesh using CloudFormation, Terraform, etc. The data plane (Envoy proxy) can run on Kubernetes (as sidecar). Traffic between control plane and data plane can go through private link (Interface VPC endpoint) for added security. Like Istio, AppMesh enables mTLS. For observability, you can export Envoy metrics with Prometheus. Coupled with XRay, AppMesh also supports distributed tracing.

AppMesh uses a different set of CRDs than Istio. Key CRDs are:

Mesh: represents an entire service mesh. At mesh level you can configure Egress filter (to allow or deny external traffic) and set IP version (v4 vs v6)
VirtualGateway: a CRD that represents an Ingress in to the Mesh. A virtual gateway allows resources that are outside of your mesh to communicate to resources that are inside of your mesh. A virtual gateway references Envoy proxy deployment by podSelector. It references GatewayRoutes by namespaceSelector, and optionally gatewayRouteSelector. You also specify listeners in the manifest to reference Envoy proxy Service (LoadBalancer Type).
GatewayRoute: A gateway route is attached to a virtual gateway and routes traffic to an existing virtual service. If a route matches a request, it can distribute traffic to a target virtual service. In the manifest, you specify a list of httpRoute, each with matching condition and action. In the action section you can specify virtualService as target.
VirtualService: an abstraction of a real service provided by a virtual node directly or indirectly by means of a virtual router. Dependent services call your virtual service by its virtualServiceName, and those requests are routed to the VirtualNode or VirtualRouter that is specified as the provider for the VirtualService.
VirtualRouter: Virtual routers handle traffic for virtual services. In a virtual router manifest, you can define Route to direct incoming requests to virtual nodes as target.
VirtualNode: A virtual node acts as a logical pointer to a particular task group (i.e. ECS service, Kubernetes deployment). It represent a Service in the AppMesh. In the manifest, you reference Pods by podSelector, specify listeners for any inbound traffic that your virtual node expects, and specify serviceDiscovery for your task group.

You can configure those Custom Resources using YAML manifests (and check the API reference a lot). Alternatively, you can configure them from AWS CLI or AWS console. The console will help you visualize what can be configured. For further details on how these CRs play together, there is a workshop for AppMesh.

EKS cluster using Terraform

Officially, there is an EKS blueprint project for provisioning EKS cluster in Terraform.

I also keep my own Terraform code in the AWS directory of cloudkube project. It works out to be a little more complex than my Terraform template to create Azure Kubernetes Cluster (Azure directory). Because I had to create Cognito resources with initial credential to allow users to connect to cluster without using the implicit master account.

Below is the diagram of the processes.

Create EKS cluster with Terraform module

The template configures kubectl access on a Bastion host, which assumed the same role that our IAM user uses to create the Kubernetes cluster. Therefore, the IAM role is the master identity.

Note that the IAM user (power-user) has very powerful permissions. Usually it is ideal to assign lots of permission to IAM Roles (temporary credential) instead of IAM user (long-term credential). So the role chaining would look like:

The IAM user that Terraform uses has no permission other than assuming a “PowerUser” role
The PowerUser role trusts the IAM user. It also has the permission to assume the “EKS-Manager” role
The EKS-Manager role trusts PowerUser’s role session.

However, the role chaining scenario above is not currently supported in Terraform.

I use a Bastion host because the cluster endpoint is on private subnet. The bastion host is on a public subnet. However, if we do not like public subnet and public IP, we can place the bastion host on a private subnet, and use SSM system manager agent with SSH tunnel plugin to have SSH access to private bastion host.

Summary

I first came across this article about EKS and its awfulness and then decided to check out EKS. I’m not sure all points are still valid but it’s generally real-life experiences. There are also many peripheral services, such as AMP (AWS Managed Prometheus), AMG (AWS Managed Grafana), ADOT (AWS Distro for Open Telemetry), AppMesh (Another Envoy-based Service Mesh, easier to manage than Istio but less Powerful), with a lot to explore.

Computing services: from PaaS to Serverless

Fri, 21 Oct 2022 19:31:00 -0400

Silicon Valley startups in mid-2000s likely do not run their own IT operations (i.e. renting their own data centre spaces, purchasing their own rack-mounted servers). Since the launch of EC2, AWS has been renting extra computing capacity to those startups, in the IaaS model. The leased infrastructure requires maintenance work, and AWS realized that many of these customers cannot afford specialized database admins, network admins, storage admins, or even server admins. As a result, they created a handful of managed services aiming to cut out admin overhead and let their customer focus on coding. This is how Platform-as-a-service (PaaS) came about.

Let’s take a look at what are exactly operation activities.

Ops activities

IT operation team manages server provisioning, installation of operating system, tuning performance, configuring auto scaling and load balancing, configure networking and storage systems, etc. Networking can be so complex that many infrastructure teams have a dedicated Network Operation Center (NOC), who along with security team, manages key aspects of networking, such as segmentation, router configuration, load balancing, firewall configuration.

For client-server application, the client-side code will make outgoing connections, utilizing the TCP/IP stack on the host through an ephemeral port. The server-side code has to be wrapped as a service. A daemon ensures the process running this service stays up and listens to a TCP port in order to respond to request by invoking the functions. Application team usually assumes these activities.

If database is involved, then the patching, upgrade, replication, data protection are all Ops problems. If storage is involved, then Ops has to manage mass data accumulated over years, the integration between storage and database and applications, performance, replication, etc. Some larger organizations have full-time database administrator and storage administrators.

Then comes container. Containers have their benefits but it increases the operation overhead by an order of magnitude. Running container application at scale warrants its own platform, most likely a Kubernetes platform, to address all of the problems above again at the cluster level. Some organization created platform team to manage container and VM platforms.

It is the Ops, that turns functional code into a running business. It is also the Ops, that becomes a pain point as a startup scales. With IaaS and PaaS models, AWS managed to convince many small businesses to delegate their IT operations to AWS. This is the humble start of cloud computing.

Elastic Beanstalk

At first, I wasn’t too impressed with Elastic Beanstalk, since it abstracts away too many details. However, I later realized that it has been surprisingly popular in the developer community, especially with individual developers and SMBs. It simplifies deployment to the point that their users don’t need to know other AWS services, allowing them to focus on coding application logic.

You configure Applications and Environments (one application may have multiple environments). In the Environment layer, you can specify code platform (e.g. Python 3.8 on 64bit Amazon Linux 2, Java, Go, PHP, Ruby) and even container platform (Docker on EC2 or ECS). Behind the scene, Elastic Beanstalk configures EC2 instances, Elastic Load Balancers, etc on the selected VPC and integrate with logging and monitoring services. In the console, Elastic Beanstalk exposes a list of configurations options (e.g. AMI, instance type). This centralized configuration page is dummied down for those who don’t want to deal with Ops.

The downside of Elastic Beanstalk is it takes away a lot of flexibility. Many developers find Elastic Beanstalk limit their choices of deployment, as their applications scale. Elastic Beanstalk does not suit for applications that demand extensive operation efforts. Its niche market is individual developers and SMB. Few enterprise applications run on Elastic Beanstalk.

Containerization with ECS and EKS

When we containerize an application, we build container images. Then we run these images with container runtimes, is a core feature of container platform. Container platform also provides orchestration engine since we frequently take containers up and down. In addition, container platform provides mechanisms for container networking and storage.

AWS has a couple options for container platform. ECS (Elastic Container Service) came out earlier. It organizes a group of EC2 instances as a cluster. You can manage autoscaling, networking, and persistent storage (EFS, FSx etc) on ECS. EKS (Elastic Kubernetes Service) is the managed Kubernetes service by AWS. Just like AKS, it provides a managed control plane along with computing nodes.

I see ECS as a proprietary and simplified container platform, and Kubernetes as an open-source standard for full-fledged container platform with an entire ecosystem. EKS includes an upstream-certified Kubernetes distribution with a set of tools specific to AWS. Since Kubernetes is the de-facto standard container platform, I prefer EKS by default, unless I can justify the use of ECS. In fact, ECS and Kubernetes have many concepts in common. For example, a “Task” in ECS is equivalent to a Pod in Kubernetes.

Whether it is ECS or EKS, right-sizing the computing node group is always challenging especially when the application traffic load is irregular. AWS Fargate is a technology that provides on-demand, right-sized compute capacities. It works with ECS and EKS. When integrated with EKS, we delegate the node management (e.g. scaling) to Fargate and forget about sizing the node pool.

Using ECS and Fargate involves quite a bit of configurations. To simplify that, we can use App Runner, which builds ECS cluster and uses Fargate to execute the container behind the scenes. App Runner helps client in a way similar to Elastic Beanstalk, but concentrate on Container workload.

Serverless with Lambda and API Gateway

The services above have their limitations when it comes to scaling capability. First, they cannot scale to zero. You still pay for idling resources. Also, it is not easy to find the optimal autoscaling setting. Lambda and API Gateway together solves these challenges. AWS refers to it as serverless, which has since become a buzzword. To understand what it is, let’s examine two concepts:

Function as a Service: service with the ability to execute code on demand. Users only pay for code execution time and do not care where the underlying runtime is
Backend as a Service: service with the ability to listen to a port and respond to web request

Lambda itself is a function as a service. Triggered by events, it only incurs a charge when it’s invoked. It does not stay up and listening to a TCP port for incoming web request, as does a backend service. In order to act as a backend, Lambda needs to pair up with API gateway. In this configuration, API gateway listens to a web request, and it fires an event to trigger the execution of Lambda function. Lambda and API gateway together makes a backend as a service. In AWS, the coupling of API gateway and Lambda function ensures an idle service does not incur computing cost.

Since Lambda supports many types of events as trigger, it is also used in event-driven architecture, either standalone or from a VPC. Under the hood, Lambda runs code in a container (with a quick startup time relative to a VM).

Developers can release Lambda code by uploading zip package to S3 bucket, or just packaging code into container image. For deployment, apart from AWS console and CLI, one can leverage CloudFormation, SAM (serverless application model), or CDK.

Lambda vs Fargate

Both Lambda and Fargate are serverless capabilities, at least from a marketing perspective. Both can be used to back web service but there are differences. They provision computing resource at different granularity.

In a web service, the execution duration of a Lambda function is the response duration to an API request, in terms of seconds. While the server is waiting for a request, there is no usage of the computing resource so you’re not paying for waiting for a request. However, this also creates the delay of cold-start, especially when the code size is large. There are several ways to optimize the cold start (e.g. SnapStart for Java), but none of those can completely get rid of the cold-start delay with a once-after-a-while request. A light GET call could take 5 seconds with cold start.

On the Fargate side, the resource provisioning is based on container lifecycle, instead of request lifecycle. As a result, you’re still paying for wait time, and it is not per-request billing. Since the container remains up, your request is not going to experience the cold-start if it’s been idle for a while. Although, Fargate saves you from the effort to right-sizing the computing nodes for container execution, it is not quite the idea of “scale-to-zero when idle” by itself.

Serverless Architecture

In the white paper AWS Serverless Multi-Tier Architectures with Amazon API Gateway and AWS Lambda, AWS advocates the serverless architecture as a modern alternative to the traditional widely adopted three-tier architecture (presentation, logic and data tiers). In the three tier architecture, the scalability of three tier are managed separately. The modern serverless architecture that AWS whitepaper proposes uses API Gateway and Lambda function in place of Load Balancer and EC2 instances (e.g. in an Auto Scaling Group), as illustrated below:

Both API Gateway and Lambda scale automatically to support the need of application workload. It assumes the role of logic tier in three-tier architecture but requires minimal maintenance work. For presentation tier, AWS has serverless alternatives such as CloudFront, S3. For data tier, AWS has serverless alternatives such as Amazon Aurora for relational database and DynamoDB for NoSQL. However, the “no request, no pay” model for Lambda does not apply to the data tier in serverless architecture.

Whilst this paradigm benefits small shop IT who wants to minimize infrastructure cost, it has downsides. There is no ability for infrastructure optimization. Since you do not manage where the code runs, client may have concerns over security (e.g. multi-tenant runtime). As business grows, keep using Lambda can result in technology lock-in. Also, a less used application usually requires warm-up time. A code start (downloading the code and preparing the environment behind the scene) can take 100ms to over a second.

Conclusion

PaaS attempts to help startups simplify the “grunt work” of IT operation. Serverless takes it even further. The semantics of serverless computing is confusing and the Wikipedia page acknowledges it as a misnomer. The nature of serverless model, is the cloud users delegate server capacity management to cloud platforms. The users don’t need to manage servers, VMs, instances, containers, etc on their own. In a previous post, I discussed the ability to scale to zero, which is just one of the many enabling technologies of serverless. Also, “no request, no pay” is neither an inherent nature of serverless model. Serverless service may involve storage (e.g. data service, S3, Aurora serverless) which incurs storage cost. There is a whitepaper on choosing the right AWS service to deploy your website or web application, with a decision tree.

AWS pioneered serverless with Lambda release in 2014 but competitor follows. In the Azure landscape, there is an entire suite of computing services from virtual machine to serverless (also with a decision tree in documentation). Azure’s counterpart for serverless architecture is Azure Function (released in 2016 for GA) with API Management. As for GCP, the serverless suite includes the event-driven Cloud Function (introduced in 2017) and Knative-based FaaS Cloud Run (introduced in 2019).

There are voices in advocacy of standardization of serverless model, and CNCF had since made minuscule efforts such as CloudEvents. The status quo, unfortunately, is anything but standardized.

Lastly, here is a table that summarizes the pros and cons of each computing service model.

Computing Service Model	Pro	Con
EC2	– Most straightforward and widespread legacy model – Legacy	– Ops tasks can be heavy (e.g. patch and vulnerability management of OS) – Utilization can be low
ECS	– Container orchestration is managed – Convenient to scale – Well integrated with other AWS services	– Limited advanced features – Vendor lock-in
EKS	– Highly scalable and flexible – Advanced, platform-neutral deployment tools available (e.g. Helm, ArgoCD, etc) – Custom configurations (e.g. operators)	– Significant operation overhead – Steep learning curve (especially for teams)
Lambda	– automatically scale – low ops overhead – pay per use	– limited choices of runtime – subject to latency due to cold start; yet warm start incurs cost – not suitable for long running tasks (batch processing jobs etc)

In summary, the Lambda-based serverless model is good for stateless server-side workload with short response time (<15s), tolerance of cold-start, no need for portability across platforms, and no complex package dependency.