Buck Woody : Best Practices, Computing

High Availability for IaaS, PaaS and SaaS in the Cloud

BuckWoody — Tue, 06 Nov 2012 15:15:28 GMT

Outages, natural disasters and unforeseen events have proved that even in a distributed architecture, you need to plan for High Availability (HA). In this entry I'll explain a few considerations for HA within Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS), Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) and Software-as-a-Service (SaaS). In a separate post I'll talk more about Disaster Recovery (DR), since each paradigm has a different way to handle that.

Planning for HA in IaaS

IaaS involves Virtual Machines - so in effect, an HA strategy here takes on many of the same characteristics as it would on-premises. The primary difference is that the vendor controls the hardware, so you need to verify what they do for things like local redundancy and so on from the hardware perspective.

As far as what you can control and plan for, the primary factors fall into three areas: multiple instances, geographical dispersion and task-switching.

In almost every cloud vendor I've studied, to ensure your application will be protected by any level of HA, you need to have at least two of the Instances (VM's) running. This makes sense, but you might assume that the vendor just takes care of that for you - they don't. If a single VM goes down (for whatever reason) then the access to it is lost. Depending on multiple factors, you might be able to recover the data, but you should assume that you can't. You should keep a sync to another location (perhaps the vendor's storage system in another geographic datacenter or to a local location) to ensure you can continue to serve your clients.

You'll also need to host the same VM's in another geographical location. Everything from a vendor outage to a network path problem could prevent your users from reaching the system, so you need to have multiple locations to handle this.

This means that you'll have to figure out how to manage state between the geo's. If the system goes down in the middle of a transaction, you need to figure out what part of the process the system was in, and then re-create or transfer that state to the second set of systems. If you didn't write the software yourself, this is non-trivial.

You'll also need a manual or automatic process to detect the failure and re-route the traffic to your secondary location. You could flip a DNS entry (if your application can tolerate that) or invoke another process to alias the first system to the second, such as load-balancing and so on. There are many options, but all of them involve coding the state into the application layer. If you've simply moved a state-ful application to VM's, you may not be able to easily implement an HA solution.

Planning for HA in PaaS

Implementing HA in PaaS is a bit simpler, since it's built on the concept of stateless applications deployment. Once again, you need at least two copies of each element in the solution (web roles, worker roles, etc.) to remain available in a single datacenter. Also, you need to deploy the application again in a separate geo, but the advantage here is that you could work out a "shared storage" model such that state is auto-balanced across the world. In fact, you don't have to maintain a "DR" site, the alternate location can be live and serving clients, and only take on extra load if the other site is not available. In Windows Azure, you can use the Traffic Manager service top route the requests as a type of auto balancer.

Even with these benefits, I recommend a second backup of storage in another geographic location. Storage is inexpensive; and that second copy can be used for not only HA but DR.

Planning for HA in SaaS

In Software-as-a-Service (such as Office 365, or Hadoop in Windows Azure) You have far less control over the HA solution, although you still maintain the responsibility to ensure you have it. Since each SaaS is different, check with the vendor on the solution for HA - and make sure you understand what they do and what you are responsible for. They may have no HA for that solution, or pin it to a particular geo, or perhaps they have a massive HA built in with automatic load balancing (which is often the case).

All of these options (with the exception of SaaS) involve higher costs for the design. Do not sacrifice reliability for cost - that will always cost you more in the end. Build in the redundancy and HA at the very outset of the project - if you try to tack it on later in the process the business will push back and potentially not implement HA.

References: http://www.bing.com/search?q=windows+azure+High+Availability (each type of implementation is different, so I'm routing you to a search on the topic - look for the "Patterns and Practices" results for the area in Azure you're interested in)

Rip and Replace or Extend and Embrace?

BuckWoody — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 11:20:05 GMT

As most of you know, I don’t like the term “cloud” very
much. It isn’t defined, which means it can be anything. I prefer “distributed
computing”, which is more technically accurate and describes what you’re doing
in more concrete terms.

So when you think about Windows and SQL Azure, you don’t
have to think about an entire product – you can use parts of the system
together or independently to accomplish what you need to do. You can use the
computing functions, storage, and more and more I see folks leverage the
Service Bus to enable current applications to expose things to the web.

And that brings up the point of this post. Once you decide
that a distributed architecture works to solve a problem, you’re faced with a
decision: should you completely re-write your architecture to take advantage of
the current systems or should you just fold in new code that makes the data or
function available to the web?

Of course, the answer is always “it depends” on the situation
– and it does. But unless you’re fixing a problem with current code, I usually
advocate a migration approach. That means at the very least retaining the
business logic (again, unless it’s not currently working) and as much of the
code as you can. In fact, if you follow this paradigm, you’re on your way to
making a Service Bus out of the functions you currently have. You can expose
the results of a system rather than opening the system up. Let’s take an
example.

Assume for a moment that you have an order-taking system
on-premise. That system performs many functions, one of which might creating a
Purchase Order. Your system might be enclosed, meaning that it has an
application that talks to a middle-tier, and then from there to a database
system. A query is generated from a screen, and passed along to eventually
compute, store and return a Purchase Order Number, along with other
information. Imagine now that you wire up the code not only to return the PO
number to the client, but to make that number available on an endpoint –
actually really not that hard to do.

Now you can make that PO number available to the web using
Azure. You could restrict who can make that call to the system, or open it up
to a broader audience. Or instead of the PO Number, you could make a product
list available. And you can go further than that – EBay, for instance, uses the
OData protocol (which is very cool in and of itself) which you can query from
the web. You could compare your company’s product catalog to what is on EBay,
and list the items you have there if there are no competitors in that space.
And on and on it goes.

So the point is this – where you can, retain what works.
Fold in systems like Azure where they make sense. Extend and Embrace.

How Does Microsoft Do IT?

BuckWoody — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 14:17:24 GMT

Microsoft is a big company – and of course we have a lot of IT infrastructure that we have to manage. It might surprise you to learn that we have an IT group, just like at your company. We have a networking team, a server hardware team, software teams, DBA’s, the whole bit. In fact, we have more Mac computers than just about anyone (other than that company down south from here) and we write some of the best-selling Apple software. We have a Linux lab.

How do we do that? How do you manage 80,000+ seats, especially when most of your company are a bunch of tech-savvy geeks? It’s a tough job, but the neat thing is that we tell you how we’re doing it – everything – right here: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb687780.aspx. If you want to focus in on just SQL Server, just check here: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb687798.aspx.

(By the way - I *totally* should be doing our marketing – isn’t that title catchy? My catch-phrases and product names would be a lot better than what we normally come up with. I’m just sayin’.)