Controlling the operational expenses associated with managing the life-cycles of software services requires model-driven automation platforms. These platforms base their automation functionality on service instance models that provide centralized representations of all services under management.
You may wonder what is so novel about this? Don’t we already have a number of tools that do exactly this? For example, isn’t this what Kubernetes does? Kubernetes keeps track of all deployed pods, the containers in those pods, and the scaling of those containers. Is there a need for anything more?
The answer—as is often the case—is it depends. While Kubernetes is great for automating lifecycle management of container-based deployments, not all services fit nicely into the Kubernetes paradigm.
Consider, for example, a fairly common Edge Computing use case. Edge Computing typically involves rather complex application topologies where some application components are installed on edge devices, other components are hosted in the cloud, and networks need to be provisioned to interconnect these components. The cloud components might be packaged as virtual machine images that need to be deployed on OpenStack of AWS clouds, or they might be constructed as cloud-native applications that are deployed using container systems such as Docker. Network connectivity might be provided by establishing secure tunnels over the public internet (e.g. using SD-WAN technology) or by special-purpose networks provided by network operators. As a result, Edge Computing invariably deals with extremely heterogeneous infrastructure environments on top of which applications need to be deployed.
In addition, Edge Computing application topologies tend to be much more dynamic and unpredictable than pure cloud-based applications. Edge devices can vary widely in how much compute power, memory, or storage is provided, which means that application components may need to adapt to the devices on which they are deployed. Devices may be mobile and can move, in which case application workloads may need to adapt to varying network conditions, and workloads may need to be moved dynamically from the cloud to the edge to satisfy latency or interactivity requirements.
It should be clear that such scenarios cannot easily be handled by Kubernetes alone, since Pods and Containers offer no support for creating network tunnels or for deploying EC2 instances on AWS. Containers may also not be the best technology for performance-sensitive data plane applications running on low-end edge devices.
What is needed instead is an automation platform that can manage services across multiple application domains. Such an automation platform must not be tied to specific infrastructure technologies or to domain specific deployment paradigms.
What might such domain-independent automation platform look like? To answer this question, let’s think about what makes an automation platform domain specific. The answer, as might be clear from our previous discussion about model-based automation platforms, is the platform’s meta-model. Key to every model-driven automation platform is a meta-model that defines the abstractions that can be used to create and manage instance models for the services managed by the platform. In the case of Kubernetes, the meta model includes Pods and Containers as first-class abstractions. This makes the Kubernetes meta-model hard to use for automating services that do not use Containers and are not organized in Pods.
The key to building a domain-independent automation platform, then, is to define a meta-model that is not tied to specific infrastructure domains or to specific deployment paradigms. At the same time, this meta model must be sufficiently expressive to describe service lifecycle management functionality in a general-purpose fashion, which would allow it to cover a broad variety of application domains. With a proper meta-model, we can build domain-independent automation platforms that can be used for end-to-end orchestration of the Edge Computing use case described earlier. I will investigate later what a feature set might look like for such a meta model.
Post a Comment