Comparing HA cluster platforms for my use

Question

I'm trying to use Docker Swarm and learn other solutions like Kubernetes, but I just can't figure out what would be better for my use, and I could use some expert help, so your input is very welcome.

I have some requirements for the cloud that I want to build, and this (obviously) should be done as cheaply as possible, easier and more reliable:

• Stateless storage containers, such as web containers, with a production quality balancer with automatic HTTPS (Let Encrypt)
• Fixed state containers such as MySQL, as in a non-clustered approach (like this: I have only one replica (because I don't need to scale there), but if this server fails, it would be nice if this container automatically moves to another host, without data loss) and in a cluster approach (for example, with Galeria).
  • These databases need fast storage, so it is advisable that they first store their data locally, and when they move, the volume moves with them.
• Combine volumes between hosts automatically at the maximum speed available for an open source solution.
• It is advisable to stay with my current data center where I host my VPS (I have three of them associated with 10GBit links) on SSD storage
  • Explanation: I want to stay with my current data center because I like their support, they have a simple automatic (not a credit card because I manage a Dutch company), they are accessible and have excellent certificates (such as ISO 27001: 2013 , PCI DSS, ISO 9001: 2008, NEN 7510, etc.).
  • You can suggest switching to Azure, AWS, or GCP, but I would prefer not.
  • I do not mind creating my own cluster, if possible, alone, with (relative) quality of production.

Keep in mind that I do not run many services (only 10-20), but I need product quality and high availability.

In addition, I prefer to run things that usually do not run in containers, in the container ecosystem, in any case, have great flexibility and restart them when the host automatically crashes.

---

Things I've already covered:

• Running Docker Swarm with Traefik and Gluster: Traefik seems stable (most of the time), automatically receives certificates, and Gluster can be used - easily - to exchange volumes. However: there is no supported Gluster driver for product quality, and therefore I need to use binding bindings, and I run into resolution problems.
• Starting Kubernetes using some input controller (for example, cert-manager, but not for production, or Traefik, or Voyager?) And a Gluster system for storing volumes, but Kubernetes seems complicated.
• In any case, switching to AWS or GCP, but their price is confusing and they pay with a credit card.
• Using something like Flynn because I only have web applications and the Heroku style system seems funny, but they still don't have HTTPS support in the stable release: https://github.com/flynn/flynn/issues / 1995

Answer 1

Honestly, in terms of pure ROI and operational load, it doesn't look like the battery life in your current data center is the right solution for this problem.

From the operator’s point of view, a container system makes sense when there are rental and heterogeneity problems that are difficult to solve with VM / VPSes, and a plant has at least dozens of nodes in size. Launching any container infrastructure in HA mode is a big job, and there are many corner cases that require special attention of specialists. The need must be large enough to make sense to make these investments.

The plant, as described, with redundancy, can run on dozens of virtual machines / VPS. Achieving the desired accessibility levels requires a thorough architecture, but stateless database and application management templates on HA virtual machines with, say, 3x scalability, are pretty well established.

There are still many discoveries in the container world. Especially with Kubernetes, every quarter there is a completely new release with new open corners.

Of course, it is really interesting to know about it, but he is still in a state where it is wonderful to see that he is working, and not bored.