(This blog is the fourth installment of a four-part series)
The Operator Pattern stipulates a process that is registered with the Kubernetes system layer, listening to Kubernetes system events with the responsibility to manage a particular set of resources. All the logic that initializes and maintains a service is thereby encapsulated into a Kubernetes deployment, which we’ll call the “Operator” hereafter.
This pattern aligns with many of the requirements for stateful apps, so the Operator Pattern is a popular implementation choice. An Operator is one way to orchestrate all the constituent pieces of a stateful app into a holistic service. An Operator can be called an orchestrator.
When a constituent container is missing, Kubernetes may automatically attempt to recreate the container, depending on several factors. For example, the StatefulSet resource typically specifies that Kubernetes will recreate any missing member of such a set. Alternatively, an orchestrator can monitor a deployment of pods to maintain the required set of containers.
Given a constituent container has failed and been recreated automatically by Kubernetes, consider its effect on a stateful app. The service may also have failed as a result of the failed constituent. To the extent that the app guarantees High Availability for the given failure case, automated recovery of the service is expected. The orchestrator must recognize the need to reintegrate the recreated container(s) into the overall service. (The very wide range of potential error cases presents a challenge to flawlessly recover without manual intervention.)
Given the need for a stateful app to orchestrate its components into a holistic service, a typical design for an orchestrator involves signalling to and from constituent containers to help move them into desired states.
Kubernetes offers health probes that can be used for decentralized signalling, including “liveness” and “readiness” health probes.
First, basic Kubernetes definitions: a failed liveness probe will cause the container to be killed. A failed readiness probe will cause a container to stop handling requests for its declared service.
Passing the readiness probe means the Kubernetes adds a DNS entry for the passing container, and vice-versa: failing the probe will omit or remove the DNS entry. Importantly, a “live-but-not-ready” container is still part of the network, but not addressable via DNS.
One mechanism for decentralized discovery of constituent containers is for these containers to bring themselves up into a live-but-not-ready state, and announce themselves via some discovery mechanism. For example, upon creation, a container could add its IP address to a config map or other shared discovery location. Meanwhile, an orchestrator can monitor changes to a config map with standard file-status monitoring tools. When all the containers that will constitute a service become available in a wait state, an orchestrator can manage initialization of the service.
Many stateful apps require complex orchestration to assemble various pieces into a single service. On “Day 1”, this orchestration must stand up and integrate all the pieces that constitute a service. On “Day 2”, this orchestration must upgrade, repair, and resize all the pieces that constitute the (already-started) service.
When developing a stateless app from scratch, consider putting off day-2 tasks in favor of starting small. Given manual intervention by administrators to help manage day-2 operations, a development team can postpone building those features to focus on making Day 1 work smoothly. For example, consider a typical day-2 task of upgrading, wherein an app release is upgraded. For a stateful app, an upgrade could easily mean a service outage. When users are given a choice between automated upgrades at unscheduled times, and manual upgrades with scheduling, users may choose to schedule. In that case, building out automated upgrading may be deprioritized.