I currently have a web application deployed to Azure on the App Service free plan and, as part of going live, I'm interested in moving to the use of slots.
This is primarily because it gives me the ability to deploy new code into staging and then seamlessly swap over once it's been validated.
Now, to use slots, I know I need the standard plan and this clocks in at a minimum of $X per VM.
What I don't know (and frustratingly haven't been able to find out from the Azure stuff on Microsoft's web pages) is whether a second slot counts as another VM.
In one place at least, it states that deployment slots are live web applications with their own hostname but that could be read in at least two ways. either as a separate app on the same VM or a separate VM altogether.
Since the difference is substantial ($2X/month rather than $X/month), it's rather important to planning. So does anyone know how (preferably with some supporting citation from Microsoft) the slots are handled and charged for?
All deployed Azure sites in a given Web App plan run on the same VM instances. Just as if you deployed mysite1.azurewebsites.net and mysite2.azurewebsites.net in the same plan, they'd share the same VM instances. So, too, do extra deployment slots.
If you scale to 3 instances, you pay for 3 instances, and all deployments (all slots for all deployments) run on all three instances.
One way to make this easier to think about: the 'production' (or main) deployment slot is just another slot.
Related
As I understand there is no concept of update domain in App Services (and in other PaaS offerings). I am wondering how Azure is handling OS updates if I have only a single instance of an App Service app. Do I need to plan for two and more instances if I want to avoid such cases when an app goes down during the OS/other updates or this is handled without downtime? According to docs App Service has 99.95% SLA - is this time reserved here?
First of all, welcome to the community.
Your application will not become unavailable when App Services is patching the OS, you don't have to worry about that. Imagine if that would be the case, it would be a huge problem. Instead, the PaaS service will make sure your application is replicated to an updated worker node before that happens.
But you should have multiple instances, as a best practice listed in this article:
To avoid a single point-of-failure, run your app with at least 2-3 instances.
Running more than one instance ensures that your application is available when App Service moves or upgrades the underlying VM instances
Have a look at this detailed blog post:
https://azure.github.io/AppService/2018/01/18/Demystifying-the-magic-behind-App-Service-OS-updates.html
When the update reaches a specific region, we update available instances without apps on them, then move the apps to the updated instances, then update the offloaded instances.
The SLA is the same regardless the number of instances, even if you select "1 instance":
We guarantee that Apps running in a customer subscription will be available 99.95% of the time
Have a look at Hyper-V and VMWare, it will give you a rough idea on how App Services handle that.
If you're looking for zero-downtime deployments with App Services, what you are looking for are deployment slots.
Managing versions can be confusing, take a look at this issue I opened, it gives you a detailed how-to approach about managing different slot versions, which is not clearly described by Microsoft docs.
Can anyone tell me or explain me what are the limitations/drawbacks of deploying multiple micro services (say 2-3) on a single Azure AppService server?
To achieve following we use microservies
Serve a single purpose or have a single responsibility
Have a clear interface for communication
Have less dependencies on each other
Can be deployed independently without affecting the rest of ecosystem
Can scale independently
Can fail independently
Allow your teams to work independently, without relying on other teams for support and services
Allow small and frequent changes
Have less technical debts
Have a faster recovery from failure
But How the Azure app service works when we try to deploy one of the microservice? will it impact other mircoservices? can we use this it in production environments?
I came across few links hosting mutiple apps on single appservice by defining virtual path for windows and for linux by adding azure storage but is it best/good practice to do?
No, it's not. They will compete for compute resources, and in case of hardware failure all of them will go down.
It sounds like you're referring to hosting multiple App Service apps in a shared App Service plan. This is conceptually (and physically) the same as running multiple apps on a server, and I would think about pros/cons along those lines.
You can host many apps on the same plan as long as the plan provides enough memory/CPU/network resources to cover the needs of the combined demands of those apps. For a few small apps, a modest plan size shouldn't have a problem handling all of them in production. The main benefit of combination is saving costs, since the plan is the unit of charge, not the apps.
Microsoft documents some reasons to isolate apps on separate plans:
The app is resource-intensive.
You want to scale the app independently from the other apps in the existing plan.
The app needs resource in a different geographical region.
From my experience, I'd add some considerations:
Deployment and restarting of apps can cause CPU spikes for the plan (which is a server). If your apps are performance sensitive and you deploy often, you might want more separation
Azure maintenance requires servers to restart at least once a month or more. If all your apps are on a shared plan, a patch reboot can mean the entire system is down and that all apps compete for resources when starting up simultaneously
I generally use separate plans as environment boundaries, so a production plan separate from a test plan. "Test" apps go on test plan, "Prod" apps on production to prevent testing from impacting users.
Azure Functions may be better fit for hosting many microservices
I thought one of the advantages of Azure was that I could turn services on and off depending on when I want them to be available.
However I cant see how to pause my App Service Plan.
Is it possible?
I want to use the S1 tier so that I can play with what it offers. However I want to be able to pause the cost accumulation when I am not using it.
I see from the app service pricing help that an app will still be billed for even though it is in the stopped state.
Yet the link also clearly states that I only pay for what I use. So how does that work?
If you put your hosting plan onto the free tier, you will stop being charged for it. However if you have things like deployment slots and certificates these will be deleted.
The ability to turn services on and off, is more to do with being able to scale services, so if you need 50 servers for an hour you can easily do that.
What you can do to make your solution temporary is to create a deployment script, using Powershell or Resource manager Templates then you can deploy your solution for exactly as long as you need it and then delete it again when you don't. In this sense you can turn your services on and off at a whim.
Azure provides building blocks for you to create the solution you need, it is up to you to figure out how to best use those building blocks to create the solution you seek.
Edited to answer extended question.
If you want to use the S1 pricing plan, and not have it charge when you are not using it, the only way of achieving that is by using automation. Fortunately, this is reasonably trivial to achieve.
If you look at this template it is pretty much all configured to deploy a website from Github to Azure on demand. If you edit that to configure it to your needs you can have a new Azure website online with 2 minutes of running the script.
Then you would have another script that deleted it once you had finished.
Doing it this way you would loose no functionality, and probably learn quite a bit about what is possible with Azure along the way.
App Service Plan
An app service plan is the hardware that a web app runs on. In the free and shared tier your web apps share an instance with other web apps. In the other tiers you have a dedicated virtual machine. It is this virtual machine that you pay for. In that case it is irrelevant whether or not you have web apps running on your app service or not, you still have a virtual machine running and you will be charged for that.
To change the App Service Plan via PowerShell, you can run the following command
Set-AzureRmAppServicePlan -ResourceGroupName $rg -Name $AppServicePlan -Tier Free
I was able to accomplish this using the dashboard by selecting the App Service Plan, clicking Scale up (App Service Plan), and then from there if you click Dev/Test you can select the Free tier.
As others have mentioned, you need to script this. Fortunately, I created a repository with one-click deployment to your Azure resources.
https://github.com/jraps20/jrap-AzureVerticalScaling
The steps are intended to be as simple and generic as possible:
Execute the one-click deployment from the repo readme
Select the subscription, resource group etc.
Deploy resource to Azure
Set up your schedule to scale up and scale down as-needed
The scripting relies on runbooks and variables to maintain the previous state of each App Service Plan and App Services within those plans. Some App Services cannot be scaled due to specific settings being used (AlwaysOn, Use32BitWOrkerProcess, ClientCertEnabled, etc.). In those cases, the previous values are stored as variables prior to down scaling and then the original values are reapplied when the services are scaled up.
For more clarity, I have written a blog post that goes into detail. The post is pertaining to Sitecore, but applies to any App Service setup- Drastically Reduce Azure PaaS Hosting Costs in Non-Prod Environments With Scheduled Vertical Scaling. It also includes a brief video tutorial to show its use case.
Myself and others have been using this repository/approach for well over a year and it works great. I mostly use it for POC's to reduce costs when I'm not actively working on something. However, its main intention was for targeting non-prod environments to save costs during non-work hours.
Azure App Service Plan is just an logical concept of a set of features and capacity that you can share across multiple apps. I don`t think you can "pause" a plan, instead you can pause your service. and depends on billing model of each service, you might or might not get charged.
Pausing = Delete or lower tier.
Scripting is the key.
Design Diagram
Use scripts to create (also consider shared resources)
Delete using scripts
Use scripts to recreate.
eg: If we use resource group properly per environment then
Export-AzureRmResourceGroup will create a template for us (everything in the resource group will be pulled out as script). So we can delete it and recreate it anytime.
To pause a VM and stop billing you need to shut is down and deallocate it. Just shutting down still has the capacity reserved as if its running.
Storage can't be shutdown - it can be moved to lower cost tiers.
We have written a high scalable Cloudservice for MS Azure with two roles: "WebsiteRole" and "WebsiteWorkerRole". For better performance we deploy this Cloudservice in multiple regions (2x US, 2x EU, 1x JP). We have different configuration files for each region (EuWestProductive.azurePubxml, ServiceConfiguration.CloudEuWest.cscfg, Web.ReleaseEuWest.config).
Now the Problem: In each Region we have running the "WebsiteRole" and "WebsiteWorkerRole". But the "WebsiteWorkerRole" has only very small tasks, so that one extra small instance in one region is more than enough.
We tried to set the Role instance count to zero (ServiceConfiguration.CloudEuWest.cscfg). But this is not allowed:
Azure Feedback: Allow a Role instance count of 0
Is there an other way to remove a role when deploy the Cloudservice?
No, as you've discovered, a cloud service does not allow for scale to zero. You have to effectively remove the deployment. To have the minimum change to what you already have in place you could separate the two roles into two different deployments. Then have an Azure Automation Script, or set of scripts run elsewhere, that handles deploying the worker role when needed and decommissioning when it's not needed.
Depending on the type of workload that worker is doing you could also look at taking another route of using something like Azure Automation to perform the work. This is especially true if it's a small amount of processing that occurs only a few times a day. You're charged by the minute for the automation script, so just make sure it's going to run less than the actual current instance does.
It really boils down to what that worker is doing, how much processing it really needs to do, how much resources it needs and how often it needs to be running. There are a lot of options, such as Azure Automation, another thread on the web role, a separate cloud service deployment, etc. Each with their own pros and cons. One option might even to look at the new Azure Functions they just announced (in preview and charged by the execution).
The short answer is separate the worker from the WebSiteRole deployment, then decide the best hosting mechanism for that worker role making sure that the option includes the ability to only run when you need it to.
Thanks #MikeWo, your idea to separate the deployments was great!
I have verified this with an small example project and it works just fine. Now it is also possible to change the VM size and other configurations per region.
(Comments do not allow images)
I have a few Azure websites running on Reserved instances that have Auto-scale turned on so they will take 1->6 servers but are usually just running on one server. I am trying to set up hot-swapping so that when I deploy there is no down time. I have created a deployment slot but am I charged extra for the deployment slot? Even if it is turned off?
This is the only reference I could find relating to this: Managing Multiple Windows Azure Web Site Environments...
To quote:
That’s the only site that would cost money, so the development and
staging sites would have no impact on the cost I’ll incur for this
setup.
I believe that the slots are part of the instance, and that the number of slots that are in use makes no difference in pricing - they are tied to the instance.
Anecdotally, I run a number of slots for QA, Staging and other environments, and the cost has not changed with respect to the number of slots used.