We develop Linux-based networking application which will run on multiple servers. We need to develop some solution for remote application update.
All I can think of now is using rpm/deb packages but we prefer not to lock this to some distro-specific solution. Besides copying files via SSH by some Bash script what would you recommend?
Thanks.
Distros does vary so much in setup and dependencies, I would actually recommend you create distro specific packages and integrate with its update tool - in the end it normally saves you a ton of trouble.
With the ease of virtualization, it's rather easy to spin up a vmware/virtualbox image foor the various distros to create/test packaging for each of them
How about puppet?
Check out Blueprit and Blueprint I/O. Blueprint is a tool that detects all of the packages, files modifications and source installs on a server. It packages them up in a reusable format called a blueprint that can be applied to another server. Blueprint I/O is a tools for pushing to and pulling from another server. Both are open-source. Hope this helps.
https://github.com/devstructure/blueprint (Blueprint # Github)
https://github.com/devstructure/blueprint-io (Blueprint I/O # Github)
I'm eight years late, but check Ansible.
Ansible is a radically simple IT automation platform that makes your
applications and systems easier to deploy. Avoid writing scripts or
custom code to deploy and update your applications— automate in a
language that approaches plain English, using SSH, with no agents to
install on remote systems.
Also, you can check this guide.
Related
My customers are novice Linux users, and so am i.
When I gave them my App packaged with ansible, they saw ansible problems, when i gave them manual steps, they also screwed that up, now i have 3 last options, either a perl/bash script or a snappy/deb/rpm package or Linux containers, can anyone share their experience on the safest way to see less problems when installing my app (Written in C)?
This depends on the nature of your application. Debs, rpms etc. are all fine but depend on which distro you're using.
If it's C application, it might make sense to make it a static binary. That way, you'll have to download a single file and just click on it to make it run. It will be big but it should work fine regardless of what else is there. Otherwise, you'll have to worry about dependencies etc.
As it was commented before it depends what you did to deploy the product.
In general, if you have dependencies (previous packages that you assume were already installed) or your installation is complex - use rpm or deb.
However if you target multi-platform bare in mind you will have at least two releases (one rpm and one deb...)
If configuration or installation is easier you can just give them an install script.
If your application requires a specific environment with specific configuration/packages I'd consider containers although I never done that personally before.
We work on scientific computing and regularly submit calculations to different computing clusters. For that we connect using linux shell and submitting jobs through SGE, Slurm, etc (it depends on the cluster). Our codes are composed of python and bash scripts and several binaries. Some of them depend on external libraries such as matplotlib. When we start to use a new cluster, it is a nightmare since we need to tell the admins all the libraries we need, and sometimes they can not install all of them, or they only have old versions that can not be upgraded. So we wonder what could we do here. I was wondering if we could somehow "pack" all libraries we need along with our codes. Do you think it is possible? Otherwise, how could we move to new clusters without the need for admins to install anything?
The key is to compile all the code you need by yourself, using the compiler/library/MPI toolchains installed by the admins of the clusters, so that
your software is compiled properly for the cluster hardware, and
you do not depend on the admin to install the software.
The following are very useful in this case:
Ansible, to upload/manage configuration files, rc files, set permissions, compile your binaries, etc. and deploy a new environment easily on new clusters
Easybuild to install your version of Python with all the needed dependencies, and install other scientific software thanks to the community supported build procedures
CDE to build a package with all dependencies for your binaries on your laptop and use it as-is on the clusters.
More specifically for Python, you can use
virtual envs to setup a consistent set of Python modules across all clusters, independently from the modules already installed; or
Anaconda or Canopy to use a Python scientific distribution
to have a consistent Python install across all clusters.
Don't get me wrong, but I think what you have to do so: stop behaving like amateurs.
Meaning: the integrity of your "system configuration" is one of the core assets of your "business". And you just told us that you are basically unable of easily re-producing your system configuration.
So, the real answer here can't be a recommendation to use this or that technology. The real answer is: you, and the other teams involved in running your operations need to come together and define a serious strategy how to fix this.
Maybe you then decide that the way to go is that your development team provides Docker buildfiles, so that your operations team can easily create images on new machines. Or you decide that you need to use something like ansible to enable centralized control over your complete environment.
That's what venv is for, it allows you to create a portable customized environment easily, with exactly what you need and nothing more.
I completely agree with https://stackoverflow.com/users/1531124/ghostcat
but here is the really bad answer that will cause you a lot of problems in near future!!!:
if you need some dynamic library and you are not planning to upgrade them in future, you can try copying all needed libs to a folder in your app and use an script to launch the app:
#!/bin/sh
export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$LD_LIBRARY_PATH:/path/to/your/lib/folder
./myAPP
but keep in mind that this is bad practice.
Create a chroot image, like here - click. Install everything you need and then you can just chroot into it on any machine.
I work on scientific clusters as well, and you are going to find that wherever you go.
I would only rely on the admins on installing the most basic stuff. That is:
- Software necessary to build your software or run the most basic stuff: compilers and most basic utilities (python, perl, binutils, autotools, cmake, etc.).
Software libraries that make use of I/O devices: MPI, file I/O libraries...
A queue system (they already have it most of the time).
Environment modules. This is not a must, but it really helps you get the job done, specially if you mess with different library versions or implementations (that's my case, for example).
From that point on, you can build and install on your own directories all the software you use most of the time.
This does not mean that you cannot ask an admin to install some libraries. If you feel that many people is going to benefit from that, then you should request its installation. In addition, you may need some specific version or some special features which are not used most of the time, but you really need them. A very good example is with BLAS libraries (basic lineal algebra subroutines):
You have lots of BLAS implementations available: the original BLAS, Intel MKL, OpenBLAS, ATLAS, cuBLAS
If that is not enough, the open source versions usually offer multiple configuration options: serial version, parallel version with PThreads, parallel version with OpenMP, parallel version with MPI...
In my particular case, most of the software that I felt was necessary for many users in the cluster ended up being installed by the admins without any problem (either me or other users requested it), but you also have to keep in mind that in a cluster there can be many users and a single person/team is not able to attend the specific requirements you need, specially if you are able to do so.
I think you want to containerize your application in some way. Two main options (because docker/rkt and similar things are way too heavyweight for your task if I understand it correctly) in my opinion are runc and snappy.
Runc relies on OCI runtime specification, you need to create an environment (that is very similar to chroot environment in that you need to copy everything you software uses in one directory) and then you'll be able to run your application with runc tool. Runc itself is just one binary, at the moment it requires root privileges to run (hello, cluster admins), but there are patches at least partly solving that, so if you build your own runc and there are no blocking things wrt root privilege requirements you may be able to run your application with no administration overhead at all.
Snappy is similar in that you need to prepare a snap package for your application, this time using snapcraft as an assistant tool. Snappy is probably a bit easier in creating an application image and IMO is certainly better for long-term support because it clearly separates your application from the data (kinda W^X, application image is a read-only squashfs file and application can only write to a limited set of directories). But at the moment it will require your cluster admins to install snapd and to perform some operations like snap installation that require root privileges. Still, it should be better than your current situation, because that's just one non-intrusive package to install.
If these tools don't fit for some reason, there is always an option to make something of your own. That won't be easy and there are many subtle details that can bite you when doing that, but it can be done, compile all of your dependencies and applications into some path, create wrapper scripts to set up PATH and LD_LIBRARY_PATH environment for your components and then bring that directory into the new cluster, run wrapper scripts instead of target binaries and that's it. It's similar to what XAMPP does, they have quite a number of integrated things packaged into one directory that works across many distributions.
update
Let's also add AppImage into the mix, theoretically it can be a savior for your case, as it specifically does not require root privileges. It's kinda inbetween Snappy and rolling your own, as you need to prepare your application directory yourself (snappy can manage some of dependencies with snapcraft when you just specify "I need this Ubuntu package"), add appropriate metadata and then it can be packaged into single executable.
I'm creating a virtual machine to mimic our production web server so that I can share it with new developers to get them up to speed as quickly as possible. I've been through the Vagrant docs however I do not understand the advantage of using a generic base box and provisioning everything with Puppet versus packaging a custom box with everything already installed and configured. All I can think of is;
Advantages of using Puppet vs custom packaged box
Easy to keep everyone up to date - Ability to put manifests under
version control and share the repo so that other developers can
simply pull new updates and re-run puppet i.e. 'vagrant provision'.
Environment is documented in the manifests.
Ability to use puppet modules defined in production environment to
ensure identical environments.
Disadvantages of using Puppet vs custom packaged box
Takes longer to write the manifests than to simply install and
configure a custom packaged box.
Building the virtual machine the first time would take longer using
puppet than simply downloading a custom packaged box.
I feel like I must be missing some important details, can you think of any more?
Advantages:
As dependencies may change over time, building a new box from scratch will involve either manually removing packages, or throwing the box away and repeating the installation process by hand all over again. You could obviously automate the installation with a bash or some other type of script, but you'd be making calls to the native OS package manager, meaning it will only run on the operating system of your choice. In other words, you're boxed in ;)
As far as I know, Puppet (like Chef) contains a generic and operating system agnostic way to install packages, meaning manifests can be run on different operating systems without modification.
Additionally, those same scripts can be used to provision the production machine, meaning that the development machine and production will be practically identical.
Disadvantages:
Having to learn another DSL, when you may not be planning on ever switching your OS or production environment. You'll have to decide if the advantages are worth the time you'll spend setting it up. Personally, I think that having an abstract and repeatable package management/configuration strategy will save me lots of time in the future, but YMMV.
One great advantages not explicitly mentioned above is the fact that you'd be documenting your setup (properly), and your documentation will be the actual setup - not a (one-time) description of how things were/may have been intended to be.
For the first time, I am writing a web service that will call upon external programs to process requests in batch. The front-end will accept file uploads and then place them in a queue. The workers on the backend will take that file, run it through ffmpeg and the rest of my pipeline, and send an email when the process is complete.
I have my backend process working on my computer (Ubuntu 10.04). The question is: should I try to re-create that pipeline using binaries that I've compiled from scratch? Or is it okay to use apt when configuring in The Real World?
Not all hosting services uses Ubuntu, and not all give me root access. (I haven't chosen a host yet.) However, they will let me upload binaries to execute, and many give me shell access with gcc.
Usually this would be a no-brainier and I'd compile it all from scratch. But doing so - not to mention trying to figure out how to create a platform-independent .tar.gz binary - will be quite a task which ultimately doesn't really help me ship my product.
Do you have any thoughts on the best way to set up my stack so that I'm not tied to a specific hosting provider? Should I try creating my own .deb, which contains Ubuntu's version of ffmpeg (and other tools) with the configurations I need?
Short of a setup where I manage my own servers/VMs (which may very well be what I have to do), how might I accomplish this?
The question is: should I try to re-create that pipeline using binaries that I've compiled from scratch? Or is it okay to use apt when configuring in The Real World?
It is in reverse: it is not okay to deploy unpackaged in The Real World IMHO
and not all give me root access
How would you be deploying a .deb without root access. Chroot jails?
But doing so - not to mention trying to figure out how to create a platform-independent .tar.gz binary - will be quite a task which ultimately doesn't really help me ship my product.
+1 You answer you own question. Don't meddle unless you have to.
Do you have any thoughts on the best way to set up my stack so that I'm not tied to a specific hosting provider?
Only depend on wellpackaged standard libs (such as ffmpeg). Otherwise include them in your own deployment. This problem isn't too hard too solve for 10s of thousand Linux applications over decades now, so it would probably be feasible for you too.
Out of the box:
Look at rightscale and other cloud providers/agents that have specialized images/tool chains especially for video encoding.
A 'regular' VPS provider (with Xen or Virtuozzo) will not normally be happy with these kinds of workload, but EC2, Rackspace and their lot will be absolutely fine with that.
In general, I wouldn't believe that a cloud infrastructure provider that doesn't grant root access will allow for computationally intensive workloads. $0.02
I'm going to rebuild my Linux box [yet] again. I have to create a few user groups, user accounts and install my standard packages. Until now I've just used the GUI tools. I was wondering if anyone has any recommendations on writing a script to create users, groups and install standard packages after I do a minimal install of my latest Fedora build? Sometimes I run Ubuntu so I'd like the script to be somewhat generic.
For .deb distros, use FAI. For .rpm distros, use Kickstart. For system management after installation, use cfengine.
Fedora and Ubuntu use totally different package managers, so you won't be able to easily do it in any sort of generic way.
In CentOS (which is RedHat Enterprise Edition with the serial numbers filed off, and so therefore pretty close to Fedora), we did this using Kickstart files. These files have a simple syntax that enabled you to specify users, groups and packages to install, and even to script some custom stuff.
While I haven't done this yet, I have a similar problem. I'm considering a virtualization host and multiple client OS (Ubuntu and CentOS being the top 2 candidates) - that way once I get the client configured as I want it, I can save it off for reloading as needed.
Doesn't get around the original setup issue, but does limit the "rebuild my Linux box [yet] again" problem.
You may want to consider it.
It may be overkill but you can check out Puppet.
From their website:
Puppet is a system for automating
system administration tasks.
I'm just starting looking for ways to automate system administration, so I don't have much experience with it yet.
If all you need to do is create users and groups and install packages then I would suggest that you just write two separate scripts.
It might be that you could share the users and groups part but only if all the distributions you use have the same policy for creating them (for example Ubuntu creates a group for each user while I am sure some distributions have a "users" group as well).
You could take a look at the useradd and groupadd commands which should be available everywhere. For Ubuntu there is also the friendlier adduser and addgroup and I would not be surprised if Fedora has a set of similar commands.
After groups are setup you just need to feed the package manager a big list of packages you need to have installed. Trying to install packages which are already installed should be safe, so you could install the packages you need on a "clean" new install and then dump a package list.
So to summarize: If you don't plan to support more than two distributions then I suggest just writing the two scripts separately.
Another option to help with constantly rebuilding a box is Norton Ghost, with ghost you can make an image and then just re-image the drive as needed. You install it and configure it to your liking, then take an image.
It's gonna be difficult to make the script generic, but you could use any sort of scripting tool (bash, or ruby or whatever) and try and check what distro is running and then run the appropriate commands to install software. There are various ways to check what distro is running here
Creating groups should be the same on all distros, and you may even be able to drop in an already configured /etc/passwd and /etc/groups (though I haven't tried that, and it may not work).
The response above, about the different distros using different methods is dead on. It's like trying to use the same part for a Chevy and a Ford (there's the car analogy, for you).
The easiest method I've found is to learn about setting up partitions for the different mount points i.e. / ; /home ; /var ; /opt are the big ones.
This lets you keep your users, groups, and many of your apps during your rebuilds. Changing distros will break a lot of things, but your user accounts should still be there.