BT

InfoQ Homepage Presentations Connecting, Managing, Observing, and Securing Services

The next QCon is in London, Mar 4 - 6, 2019. Save an extra £75.00 with INFOQ75!

Connecting, Managing, Observing, and Securing Services

Bookmarks

Transcript

Hey, everybody. Thanks for coming. I appreciate everybody coming to the after lunch slot. It's always a risky one because everybody else is pretty full and ready to nap, you know. But hopefully, we have a pretty fun presentation in store for you.

So today I'm going to be talking about connecting, managing, observing and securing microservices and that's a big mouthful, and obviously any single one of those topics is more than enough for an hour-long talk so we're going to be doing kind of a whirlwind tour of some of the problem space, the shape of some of the solutions to help connect manage, observe and secure services and then we're going to do a deep dive into Istio itself which is the particular service mesh that I work on.

Intro

So just a little bit about me. You know, I'm one of the core contributors at Istio. Just left to help start a company that's building on top of the project now. And before that, I worked on the project at Google.

So our high-level agenda: What is the problem? What's the shape of the solution? What are some service meshes that are around that you could use today and then we'll talk a little bit about maybe when one might be more appropriate than another. And then we'll do the deep dive into Istio itself and in the end we'll have a nice demo to show some of the functionality that I'm talking about.

The Problem

So this is kind of the motivating problem statement for service meshes in general and for a lot of technology that's cloud data today. Our shift to a modern architecture leaves us unable to connect monitor, manage or secure. That's the fundamental problem. And so what do I mean by this modern distributed architecture? We mean that we're moving away from monoliths and into services. So there's a lot more points of contact. Whereas before with the monolith I might have one or two front doors to get into the system, when I have a set of services there's doors everywhere into various things.

We are deploying them into more dynamic environments. This is both a really good thing and a very painful thing. So these dynamic, you know, fluid scaling environments that cloud providers can give us are incredible. If you heard the talk that was in the ballroom I guess two before mine, that was a perfect intro. Andrew [McVeigh] talked about a lot of the challenges of building microservices at scale. And these dynamic environments are a key piece of that, things like Kubernetes and Mesos and Nomad and other orchestrators. Let you take use of this flexible capacity but the problem is you have to architect your entire system around this change that's now introduced. With old style architectures, I worked trying to oil pipe one, and we ran five services. We had a service-oriented architecture but I could walk into our server room and I could point to each of the servers that ran our services. Right? And that doesn't work when compute scales. You can't go point to the box that runs it.

And then the final piece of this and in my opinion, this is actually the thing that causes the most developer pain, is that our applications are now composed with the network. And the network is really the glue that sticks our applications together, whereas before in the world of monoliths, we maybe had one process, one giant binary that we could debug through. And really this is a failure of tooling and this is a large part of the reason in my opinion that it's so hard to move to micro service-based architectures because the tools that we're used to using to diagnose problems really don't apply in the same way because they don't know how to navigate the network. How do I trace a request across a set of 10 services? You know, that's hard to do. How do I trace a call through 10 processes on a single machine, is hard enough today with our tooling, and now you make them distributed and it's an incredible amount of complexity to add. But we have to take on that complexity so that we can increase our velocity, move faster and actually ship features, right. So we have to take on that pain to achieve our business goals.

Connect

So what exactly are the things that I'm talking about when I say connect, manage, monitor and secure? When we talk about connections, we want to make an application developer not think about the network, and that's really hard when now the network is the thing that glues all of your application together. Right? And today if you go and look at dead services you'll see a lot of patterns like who has written a FOR loop to do retries? Yes. So who has gotten it wrong and then DOSed another service? And fixing that is a pain, right, because you have to go redeploy your code, and redeploying code is risky and hard. That's never a good thing. So we want things like resiliency, things like retry, circuit breaking, timeouts, I want to do lame ducking, I want to not talk to a back end that's giving me bad responses. And really I shouldn't have to build that into my application.

Second big piece of connectivity is service discovery. How do I even know the things that I'm talking to and where they live? You know, and today there are solutions like DNS that are widely used that come with a lot of problems again, because we have this dynamic environment. DNS caches are kind of our enemy. How many people have had problems with DNS caching that results in request going to bad services that should be out of rotation?

And that could be hard to fix. And similarly, we want load balancing everywhere, because that's really a key to building a robust and resilient system is being able to shift load easily. And ideally, we would like our load balancing to be client side. I would like my clients to be smart enough to be able to pick the right destination, because that means that I could have more efficient network topologies, right. If I have to run a middle proxy that does load balancing, it means that it becomes a point in my network where all this traffic has to flow through, and I would really like to keep traffic point to point where I can keep nice, simple, efficient networks, if I can. And so the client side load balancing is a really valuable tool to help with that.

Monitoring

Next, we want to do monitoring. This is just what's going on. This gets really to the heart of where I think most of our developer pain is today, which is I have this thing, I have this system and it's got all these moving parts. What's it like, what's it doing? And there we need metrics and we need logs and ideally, we want traces too so that we can actually look at the path of any particular request through our system.

And it's not enough just to have metrics and logging. You really need consistent metrics and logging with similar dimensions, with the same semantics for those dimensions everywhere because when we have metrics for example that are ad hoc per service, it becomes impossible to build a higher level system on top of those metrics. If you use something like a service mesh that can give uniform metrics everywhere, it becomes possible to do things like build alerting on top of those predefined metrics that your entire organization can use. Hey, I'm spinning up a new service. I need to wire up alerts for it. You go, "Oh, cool. Here's the templates already, you know. Here, we already have our metrics. You're ready to go."

And it really reduces the effort required to spin up new services, the effort required to monitor existing ones. This is one of the key features of a service mesh that we'll come back to which is just this consistency because a different system is handling these core requirements rather than every individual application doing it.

Manage

We want to be able to manage the traffic in our system, and we want to manage not just where it goes, where it gets routed to but how it does that and really we want to be able to apply policy to that traffic. I want to be able to look at L7 attributes of a request and decide whether or not my application is going to serve that request or not. And there's a ton of different use cases there. So you can think about maybe some API gateway use cases around things like coding, rate limiting, off. You can even phrase authn/z, you know. Is the service allowed to talk to another service is a perfect example of policy that applies to an entire fleet that you can use a service mesh to help you implement.

And when I talk about traffic control a lot of the industry today does L4 load balancing and L4 traffic control. So we really want to move that up to be application aware. I want to be able to make load balancing decisions based on application load on the health of my actual service. Not necessarily how much CPU or RAM or whatever it's using because those may or may not actually be correlated depending on what my use case is.

Secure

And then a final big piece that we need now and this gets back to some of this decomposing of the monolith into individual pieces. Security becomes a lot harder. So before, typically, I would have one entry point into my monolith, and we can lock down and firewall everything else, and network traffic is locked down and I can apply network policies at L3 and L4 to make sure that things can't talk to each other that should. The problem is all of that is focused on the network identity of a workload. What is the IP:port pair, what is the machine that's running it? That's what all of our network security is used to dealing with. Except that I just said, "Hey, we're in this new dynamic environment where things change all the time." And that IP and port that's hosting one application may not be hosting at the next. That's a lot for existing networking tooling to keep up with. If we look at some of the early CNI implementations in Kubernetes as an example, they suffered all kinds of problems with crashing kernels and that kind of thing because it was doing IP tables to update which hosts on the network were allowed to talk to each other ones.

And that was kind of an abuse of that system to provide a valuable feature set and since then a lot of CNI plugins have moved away from that model, but fundamentally a lot of the network level tooling that we're used to dealing with is not built to cope with the higher rate of change of the applications today.

So we want to be able to assign an identity that is tied to the application, not to the host, the thing that's running on the network. I want my identity and I want the policy that I write about what two services are allowed to talk to each other for example, to be in terms of the services and not in terms of the IP address that happens to host that service right now.

And then with the goal with moving away from that reachability is authorization model, right. Kind of in vogue today is the zero trust networks and Google's Beyond Corp. That's kind of the stuff that I'm talking about here, when we can start to move identity out of the network and into some higher level construct that's tied to an application.

The Service Mesh

So, the goal of a service mesh is to move those four key areas out of your applications, out of thick frameworks and into something else. And that something else depends on which implementation you pick. A common service message today that people use is just Envoy proxies, right. So we write up some config for how Envoy is going to proxy for my service, and we put an Envoy beside every instance. And you can get a lot of the traffic control, you can get a lot of the resiliency features that I talked about, the telemetry out of that system.

You could do something like Linkerd which is again another service mesh that works in a similar way to what Envoy does now, where you put a proxy beside every single workload, it intercepts all the network traffic, and allows you to provide this feature set. And we'll go into depth about how that architecture works and then how those things happen.

And then Istio is the third service mesh that provides these features that I talked about. One of the other key goals that I didn't talk about in those four is the consistency. I want metrics, I want security, I want policy - each of those four categories I want to be consistent across all of my services. I want to retry policy to be consistent. All of that. I would like to be able to control it in one place and this is a key enabler for velocity. When we add in a service mesh, we can delegate another team to handle a lot of these cross-cutting concerns and move them out of the realm of concern of an application developer.

So a single central team can do things like manage the traffic health and the network health of your infrastructure, and individual developers don't need to worry about that. It's a huge force multiplier. Central control is a huge force multiplier to let an organization do more by moving things out of the view of developers.

And then finally another key feature of all of these systems are fast to change. Change on the order of config updates, not binary pushes. And that's a really, really key feature just for that DOS use case that I talked about. I have on multiple occasions DOSed another service with a bad retry loop. It's really nice to be able to push config to change that and not have to go get a release in and cut a new binary.

Istio

So Istio is a platform that does that. It is a service mesh that implements a lot of this capability. And so let's talk about kind of in detail how it works. So this is going to be our mental model. It's real, it's about as simple as it can be. A just wants to call B over the network. We don't really have to care what. It can be HTTP rest request, it could be TCP bundle over TLS. It really doesn't matter. It's just a network call. If it's a protocol that we can understand like HTTP for example, then we can get more interesting data about it to show the user and I'm going to demo a lot of this stuff. I'm going to demo a lot of the telemetry and that kind of thing in at the end of the talk and we'll get to see some of what I'm talking about. But this is just our model.

How Istio Works

So how do we start to build this kind of mesh to get this functionality that I've talked about? The first thing that we're going to do is put a proxy beside every single workload that's deployed in our system. We call this a sidecar proxy. Istio uses Envoy as its proxy of choice. Envoy was specifically built with this use case in mind. So if we think about like a traditional nginx that we use for load balancing in our system, it has a very different set of requirements than a proxy that we're going to put beside every single application. It's a lot bigger, the rate of change is a lot slower, you're handling substantially more traffic typically. You want to make a different set of tradeoffs somewhere when we're building in this sidecar style model. We want a lighter weight proxy. Keeping the footprint small becomes very important. We want it to be highly dynamic because again that's one of the big requirements of the system that we're deploying into is that things change quickly. We need to be able to update the configuration of our proxies very quickly as well. And so Envoy was built by Matt Klein and the team at Lyft to address these particular use cases.

Secondly, then we need to start to get configuration into the system. So Istio has this component called Galley. It's responsible for taking configuration, validating it and then distributing it to the other Istio components.

So we had these sidecars there. They actually need some config to do something. In our system, if we just have static sidecars that sit there it doesn't give us a lot. So we deploy this Pilot component of Istio, which is responsible for understanding the topology of our deployment and what's the network loop like, and pushing that information into the sidecar so they can actually do routing at runtime.

We want to perform policy at runtime like I mentioned. We want to be able to do things like service to service authentication. I want to do things like rate limiting. Ideally, I might even want to do things like end user off in Mixer. So that's one of those things that invariably in every organization winds up being a library that you include. How do you handle your end user credentials? How do you authenticate them and how do you authorize them for access? Hopefully, all of your services do it the same way. And they probably use a library to do that. This is another key location where, hey, that's logic that we can pull out and into our service mesh. Things that are horizontal that cut across our entire fleet, we can pull into our service mesh, implement at one time.

And if I have Mixer here, in this case, doing the off policy on the end user request, for example, I don't need my application developers to worry about it. And this is one of the other kind of core features of a service mesh as opposed to other approaches to get this functionality, because service meshes are not necessarily new. There's been things like Finagle that had been around for quite a while that Twitter uses. There's Netflix and Hystrix and that family of things. Those are all very service mesh-like libraries and frameworks. The problem is they're all language specific. Using a proxy to implement it, it being the network to the application lets you sidestep that language dependency so you can provide all this functionality in a language agnostic way.

And again, this is one of those things that helps boost developer productivity. It becomes one less hurdle to use a new language in your environment for example, because a lot of the core cross-cutting functionality which has traditionally been implemented as libraries can move out into a language agnostic format. Huge benefit.

And then finally there's a component of Istio called Citadel that's responsible for provisioning workload identity, that L7 identity that's tied to the application. Citadel is responsible for provisioning that at runtime and that looks like a certificate. That's an X509 cert and rotating it frequently.

So how does our request actually flow through the system? If we go back to the very beginning, A just wants to call B. We've set up all this machinery, these Envoy sidecars, the control plane is running static and A is used to call the B. So the first thing that happens is that locally the client sidecar traps that request. That can be done in a variety of ways but so far Istio typically uses IP tables to do this redirect. And so it traps all the traffic in and out. Envoy then inspects that request that looks at the metadata, the L7 request. If this is an HTTP call we'll look at the host header to determine routing. And Envoy then takes this opportunity to make a client-side routing decision, and picks the B instance that we're actually going to send the request to. And Pilot ahead of time programmed all this data into the Envoy. So any given Envoy in the context of a request knows all the other endpoints and can make an immediate decision and route. We don't need to do DNS lookups, we're not out of path. You can then immediately route.

So we pick a B. We forward our call to B. We don't necessarily know that there's a client-side Envoy or server side Envoy in this case. We don't know that there's a sidecar there or not. Part of the goal of the system is to be transparent. But in this case, we do have one that catches it on the other side.

Now receiving - this is where I want to apply policy. So this is actually in request path. I'm going to block. I'm going to go talk to Mixer and I'm going to say, "Hey, here's this request that I just got. Here's the bundle of the data about it. Do I let it through or not? Make a decision." And this is the point where you can do things like implement your own authn/z. If you're doing things like a header based token for off that's easy enough to pull that out of the request and do authentication or authorization. You can do things like rate limiting here. Again, anything you might want central control over is a good fit for policy in Istio.

And Mixer makes a thumbs up, thumbs down decision. That's really at the end of the day. Envoy says, "Do I let it through or not?" And Mixer just replies with “yes”, “no” and a cache key. So obviously it would be prohibitively expensive to call out to Mixer for every single request that comes into the system because that doubles the traffic in your system, that's not feasible. And so, instead, it turns out that a lot of service-to-service communication, and even end-user-to-service communication has a lot of properties that make it very cacheable. Typically any given client has a very high temporal locality. If you're going to access my API, you're probably going to access it a whole bunch in a short amount of time and then you're going to go away and not come back for a long time. And then you're going to come back and access it a whole bunch.

Very admitable to caching and you can actually see cached rates, above 90%. So rather than doubling the traffic in your system by making these policy calls instead, you're talking about a much smaller increase, maybe 10%.

So Mixer gives a thumbs up. We say, "Yes, cool. Let the request through." And so the sidecar there will send the request back into the application that's behind it. The application will do whatever business logic it needs to build its response. Maybe that's calling other services down the graph, maybe it's going to a database. Maybe it just has the answer in hand.

But it will send that response back. And then asynchronously and out of band, both the client and the server side sidecar will report back telemetry. And that's awesome because it means that we get a complete picture of what happened from the client’s perspective and from the server's perspective which is massive for debugging. It's so frustrating, we typically only ever have the server side metrics. As somebody that's producing a service, I always worked on back-end services myself. I always had my server-side metrics and there's so many times the problem is either in the middle or on the client. Having a single system that gives us both sides of that is massive for debugging. It's so awesome.

Architecture

So here's a little bit nicer picture of the architecture that we just walked through with all of the components labeled. And again like I said, Pilot is for config to the sidecars, Mixer is for telemetry and for policy, Citadel is for identity and Galley is for configuring everything.

Demo

So with that we're actually going to dive into a demo, and I'm going to just kind of show you some of what I'm talking about with the service mesh and we'll see some of the telemetry, we'll see some of the traffic control. So let me frame our demo. If anybody has played with Istio before, you've seen the bookinfo app. It is the canonical test application that we use for Istio. And this is what the deployment looks like. We have a product page that's the UI that renders a book. It calls the detail service to get some details about the book, and it calls some version of the review service to get a review for that book.

Finally, two of the reviews calls the rating service. So this is what we're just going to deploy. I'll just do [inaudible] and apply in a second. Where we're going with it is we're going to use Istio to split it up and deploy it across clusters. So this is a use case that I've had quite a few different users talk about, which is we need to deploy it across availability zones as an HA requirement for example. That's a pretty frequent one. I need to run in two availability zones as an HA setup and that's a blocker for my merger and acquisition, for example.

So what we're going to do is go from this setup to that setup with no errors. We should see a 100% 200s the entire time and it should be seamless, the application. We're not going to touch the applications that are deployed at all.

So with luck, it'll go smoothly. […] Let me go to my cheat sheet real quick and make sure that I'm set up correctly. So just real quick so that everybody can see what I'm doing. I'm just going to alias throughout this presentation. I'm going to use KA and KB because I'm going to be typing and to type coop control in the context is ridiculous. So KA goes to cluster A, KB goes to cluster B.

And then let's go ahead and get Istio. Istio, I've already installed actually. Sorry you can never type when you're on stage. And so just to prove that I've installed this ahead of time already. So this is just a stock Istio installed. This is actually the Istio demo script. One small change that I'll touch on later is I do have a core DNS deployed and we'll get into that. And KB is the same. So if I grab this, we can see the same and notice we have just this one external IP address. That's our ingress into the remote cluster. So that's our proxy that's running ingress.

So let's go ahead and deploy the book info in the cluster A. Again this is just the standard stock Istio looking for deployment and similarly … (This is a proof that you know the demo is live is that something breaks. Sorry. One second.) I tried to bypass some of my setup. So all I did was just run a little script that went and pulled the IP addresses that we're going to need later for me, and wrote them into some files including … Sorry about that. So now let's verify that our product page was actually deployed successfully. All right, so we're deployed. We're there. We have our ingress.

Sorry about this, guys. It’s fun debugging. Let me pull up the ingress. Actually it did work before, I promise. So we're just going to do this by hand to verify, and then we can do the nuclear option which is just blow up the pod. (So sorry about that.) And then there's one more little bit of setup that we're going to do if I find my script. This is all because I didn't correctly tear down my cluster last time. I'll go into detail about what this is in a second but I'm just doing this to set up things.

We're using the CW tool that we're using is this a tool that produces Istio config for us. And we'll dive in detail what it does. But this now gets everything working. So we have book info with reviews. Awesome. We're at the start of the demo now. So let's go ahead and start driving some traffic to the deployment. I'm going to show you some stats in a second. So all I'm going to do is just start a loop that's just curling the websites, we get some traffic in the background. And then I am also going to go ahead and set up Grafana to run. So in the Istio demo deployments, Istio ships with a Grafana dashboard that lets us see all these consistent metrics that I talked about.

One more command. You can tell that this is a fresh demo. This is the first time giving this particular demo. Awesome. This one's not on me. This is the port forward. Now we get our Grafana dashboards. So this is the stock Istio dashboard so if you've looked at Istio before you would see it. And here we can clearly see the set of services that we've deployed. We can see the small amount of traffic that we're sending to it right now - about 10. And then we can go and look at any individual service that we have deployed. Again, this is the advantage of having these pre-canned metrics that are homogenous everywhere. I can do things like define one dashboard that plugs into those metrics that provides useful and interesting data like total request volume, the success rate, our latencies, these critical metrics for actually diagnosing the health of a service. Out of the box without having to add them to the application itself. And we can see both the client side and the server side. We don't have any … sorry, I guess we do in this case.

So these dashboards, awesome, free, out of the box. We're now in this state. So let's go ahead and start to migrate things over. So if we're moving to this end destination, step one is going to be just to migrate details over first. So we'll go incrementally one service at a time. We'll ship them over and the big thing that we want to watch, we can actually see our global success rate. This is aggregate any 500 across the entire system will trigger something there. So we expect that to stay at a 100 as we do our traffic shifting. And then let's go ahead and start doing that. So the first thing that we're going to do is deploy the detail service into our second cluster.

And if we get the service we see it's deployed. Now let's talk about the CW tool that I was going to demo. So Istio gives us the tools in hand to shift this stuff around basically playing some shell games with how names resolve. The problem is it's the config to write this, to do these kinds of traffic shifts and Istio's super tedious to write. It's exactly the same every single time but it's multiple config documents that you need to produce together. So the CW tool that we're going to be using, it's called Cardimapal, is something that my team built, and all it does is just generate the Istio config for a couple of different use cases. The reason I'm talking about it now is because in order to generate this config, we need a little bit of auxiliary data. So the first thing that we need is a representation of our clusters. So I mentioned before that we have A and B.

Here is our A and B clusters and in particular, these addresses are those IP addresses of the ingresses that I talked about earlier. So we're going to communicate between our clusters over the internet via the ingress, and we can rely on Istio TLS to keep that secure. So Citadel provisions identities. Those identities are used to do mutual TLS between workloads. So we can over the internet just go in through the ingress and that's fine. We sub the same route of trust ahead of time and so the workloads trust each other, and we can just do TLS all the way through. Not need to worry about setting up a VPN or any other kind of complicated setup that we might have to do otherwise.

The second thing that we need is a small representation of the service. Enough to be able to generate some configuration to talk to it. Here's the name, the product page service, how we call it, the ports. And this backends bit here lines up with the clusters in A. So if I had product page deployed in B for example or I just deployed details into B, I can go ahead and add this as a backend.

So all I'm doing is updating this little model of our detail service and I'm saying, "Hey, it's deployed both into cluster A and it's deployed into cluster B. And it's the details that default Kubernetes service name. That's the actual address of the service in the cluster. And so now we can go and generate some of that tedious config to wire up our cluster so that this ingress works, details us here and then we'll wire up some config on A side to let it know that cluster B exists.

So this time we'll say, "Hey, Cardimapal generate config for cluster B and I care about the detail service." So this just spat out a bunch of yammo. Let me pull it over somewhere where we can actually look and see what it does. So there's three key pieces of config that we have here. The first is our gateway. How do we actually get into this detail service? And this just says, "Hey, run on the normal SEO gateway and use the details like global name." This is going to be the name I expect a client to call with this global name to ingress.

I defined routing for that. I say, "Hey, by the way, at that gateway that we created, if you see these two hosts go ahead and just send it to the detail service." I had a typo here in my services And then finally we have a service entry that just says, "Hey, by the way …"

By the way, this service entry, I'm going to define this name, these two names and just resolve them to the Kubernetes service really. So it's just basically playing a shell game, creating a new name for our Kubernetes service. And our application already talks to this thing. And the reason that we want to do this that we want to decouple naming from the Kubernetes names is it allows us to do things like shift traffic between clusters. The problem is that Kubernetes names are scoped to a cluster. And so, if I immediately want to begin to do things across clusters, I need some different naming domain where I can't get conflicts. And so that's why we're playing a little bit of a shell game with some of the names here. We're using this global service rather than the full Kubernetes service name. And that's also why we're running core DNS in our clusters so that we can resolve these new names that we're creating.

So let's go ahead and do that. Let me verify that I actually saved this correctly so we don't wind up with reviews on there like last time. Details, details everywhere. Ratings, ratings, reviews. So the same config that I just walked through. We're just going to keep it and apply it. We didn't create our namespace. Excellent. So now I can take this. I can prove to you that our ingress works real quick. So I'm going to curl the detail service and I'm going to set that host header. We have the same problem that we had in the other one so let's just kill the pod real quick. Sorry, and again this is just a little bit of setup. It's not typical that you have to go delete your ingress pod to get config to apply.

So we got a 404 which we would expect because we didn't set our host header but as soon as we set our host header, suddenly we can do routing normally and we can get our details. Great. So we have set up this. Now we want to add our keyed link.

And the way that we're going to do that is go update our representation. So I want to move details. I really don't want to model details being in A. I want to shift it over to cluster B. So I'm going to go back to my model with my services. I just deleted it out and now we are only in cluster B. And we can see that we actually generate now a different set of config for cluster A. So I said, "Hey, details moved. The config to talk to details is now a little different." It actually points to this IP address for the remote cluster. So we say, "Hey, if you want to resolve that details name go over to the royal cluster."

So we can just go ahead and apply that. And then the last thing we have to do is you remember that virtual service that I showed you here? This is currently in our cluster and it says, "Hey, when you see details send it to the local service." Clearly, I don't want that anymore, because I just said, "Hey, no. I want to move it over to the remote." So let's go ahead and delete this virtual service. And this is just some Istio config and what we'll see here is if we come and look at our cluster A we see that there's traffic going in. If we look at cluster B we see that the only traffic was my couple curls. What we should see is when I remove this rule our traffic flop over because right now that rule says, "Keep the traffic local."

And then let's lead it in the right namespace. And so we just removed that config from cluster A. So now what we should see is traffic start is A still 100% success. This should still load. We're still loading and we're seeing reviews. And we see that traffic is actually starting to pick up. So we're on our five minute delayed window for our metrics. So we can see the traffic picked up but our ops per second is still low. And we can dig into a little bit more detail here and we can see that in fact, traffic is picking up. And we can go back to our side that's actually serving our UI and see that did it with actually no errors anywhere. So we didn't drop any connections to anybody. We didn't lose one of the user requests during that flop over. Everything just kind of flowed through the system.

So we're running short on time now because, you know, it turns out the demo was a little bit more efficient when it works. I want to save some time for questions. So I apologize we didn't get to dig in quite as much as I'd wanted to but hopefully we got to see a little bit of the telemetry out of the box that's pretty useful. And we can see how we can apply pretty cool traffic shifts and make interesting things happen with just changing configuration. I didn't have to touch any of those applications, we didn't have to touch any of the code, it was all deployed and running the entire time and we were able to change it really without the applications noticing. And that's a key feature for that philosophy. I want my ops team to be able to manage the cluster and my dev team not to have to care.

Questions and Answers

So questions? We got four minutes.

Man: So in your example, you were referring that saber A called Mixer to apply policies, and you said that there was no penalty you paid per request but then when invoke service B, there is again Envoy. So down the stream service there always calling Mixer to check enforcement?

Butcher: So the server side, Envoy will always call. You want policy to be enforced on the server side because you can't trust the client applied policy. So we always hit on the server side. Logically, Mixer is called on every single request to a server but we cache. Does that answer the question?

Man 1: Yes.

Butcher: Perfect.

Man 2: In the instance you showed, is the same instance of Istio actually managing across two distinct Kubernetes clusters?

Butcher: That's a great question. So and this gets into some of that Istio multi-cluster work. The answer is today what I demoed you does not actually. So these are two separate control playing instances with two separate config domains. In my opinion, that's actually how you want to run Istio across clusters. So it really gets into what you mean by what's a service mesh. The real answer is identity. These workloads can communicate with each other because they share a common identity domain. Because they have that common identity domain we can establish connections. It doesn't really matter who's configuring that. The fundamental piece is that there's communication. And so we can have separate administrative domains. It's still one mesh because we still have one set of identities.

Woman: So every time I make a call that Mixer is invoked. What keeps it from being the single point of failure?

Butcher: Yes, that's a great question. So there are a couple of different things. So A, Envoys are doing caching. So you can think of Mixer in some senses as a centralized cache and then the Envoy as this kind of leaf cache notes. So the second piece is that Mixer itself can be horizontally scaled. So there's not any one particular instance of it. There are many instances. I guess the short answer is Mixer can be a single point of failure if you configure things incorrectly, but in terms of actual scaling, it's horizontally scaled so one instance going down is not going to kill anything. You can push bad policy that might cause a global outage and be a single point of failure. But outside of that, it tends to not be. So this architecture actually came out of Google. Google had a system of identical architecture for about the last four and a half years now. And actually what we've observed is that not only is it not a single point of failure, but it actually boost the client perceived availability of the backends that it's in front of, because it acts as a distributed cache. And it turns out that it's really, really easy to run a distributed cache at high availability and it's really, really hard to run systems that make policy decisions at high availability.

So there are definitely failure modes in which it can be a single point of failure but in practice, we've actually observed it doing just the opposite and increasing the client perceived availability of a back end. And off is a perfect example. So today your off call -every single service should be calling your off service for every single request. And instead, you can reduce that by a factor of about 10X by having Mixer cache that and have that result reused. And that just works natively with how Mixer functions. It automatically does these caching of decisions.

 

See more presentations with transcripts

 

Recorded at:

Dec 27, 2018

Hello stranger!

You need to Register an InfoQ account or or login to post comments. But there's so much more behind being registered.

Get the most out of the InfoQ experience.

Allowed html: a,b,br,blockquote,i,li,pre,u,ul,p

Community comments

Allowed html: a,b,br,blockquote,i,li,pre,u,ul,p

Allowed html: a,b,br,blockquote,i,li,pre,u,ul,p

BT

Is your profile up-to-date? Please take a moment to review and update.

Note: If updating/changing your email, a validation request will be sent

Company name:
Company role:
Company size:
Country/Zone:
State/Province/Region:
You will be sent an email to validate the new email address. This pop-up will close itself in a few moments.