Assessing Kubernetes Pod enlarging Methods for Applications That Rely on Events
Keywords:
Kubernetes, Pod Scaling, Horizontal Pod Autoscaling, Resource OptimizationAbstract
In cloud-native architectures in particular, Kubernetes has proven indispensable for containerized application management. Because of their unpredictable workloads, event-driven applications—which respond to asynchronous events—present particular difficulties. To manage unexpected spikes in activity & scale down during slower times, these systems requires a high degree of flexibility. Custom metrics & Horizontal Pod Autoscaling (HPA) based scaling are two of Kubernetes' primary scaling strategies. Horizontal Pod Autoscaling is a perfect for predictable scalability since it modifies pod numbers according to our resource utilization, such as memory or CPU. However, more accurate scaling is frequently needed for event driven applications with erratic loads pattern. This is addressed by custom metrics based on enlarging, which suits better then the requirements of the application by utilizing their certain indications, such as event queue length. Both approaches are supported by Amazon EKS, enabling customers to maximize scalability for workloads that are event driven. Despite being easier to build, Horizontal Pod Autoscaling could not be appropriate for complicated use cases, which could be result in either under- or over-scaling. More control is possible with custom metrics enlarging, but it requires more setup & also oversight. This study examines that the benefits & drawbacks of both strategies in EKS & provides helpful advice on which technique is to use depending on workload needs.
References
1. Mohanty, S. (2018). Evaluation of serverless computing frameworks based on kubernetes (Master's thesis).
2. Trnkoczy, J., Pašcinski, U., Gec, S., & Stankovski, V. (2017, September). SWITCH-ing from multi-tenant to event-driven videoconferencing services. In 2017 IEEE 2nd International Workshops on Foundations and Applications of Self* Systems (FAS* W) (pp. 219-226). IEEE.
3. Chelliah, P. R., Naithani, S., & Singh, S. (2018). Practical Site Reliability Engineering: Automate the process of designing, developing, and delivering highly reliable apps and services with SRE. Packt Publishing Ltd.
4. Gjorgjeski, N., & Jurič, M. (2016). Complex event processing for integration of internet of things devices (Doctoral dissertation, Bachelor’s thesis: Undergraduate university study programme computer and information science).
5. Lee, H., Satyam, K., & Fox, G. (2018, July). Evaluation of production serverless computing environments. In 2018 IEEE 11th International Conference on Cloud Computing (CLOUD) (pp. 442-450). IEEE.
6. Pérez, A., Moltó, G., Caballer, M., & Calatrava, A. (2018). Serverless computing for container-based architectures. Future Generation Computer Systems, 83, 50-59.
7. Bila, N., Dettori, P., Kanso, A., Watanabe, Y., & Youssef, A. (2017, June). Leveraging the serverless architecture for securing linux containers. In 2017 IEEE 37th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems Workshops (ICDCSW) (pp. 401-404). IEEE.
8. Lv, K., Zhao, Z., Rao, R., Hong, P., & Zhang, X. (2016, December). PCCTE: A portable component conformance test environment based on container cloud for avionics software development. In 2016 International Conference on Progress in Informatics and Computing (PIC) (pp. 664-668). IEEE.
9. Nadgowda, S., Suneja, S., & Isci, C. (2017). Paracloud: bringing application insight into cloud operations. In 9th USENIX Workshop on Hot Topics in Cloud Computing (HotCloud 17).
10. Soltani, B., Ghenai, A., & Zeghib, N. (2018). Towards distributed containerized serverless architecture in multi cloud environment. Procedia computer science, 134, 121-128.
11. Manchana, R. (2017). Optimizing Material Management through Advanced System Integration, Control Bus, and Scalable Architecture. International Journal of Scientific Research and Engineering Trends, 3, 239-246.
12. Baldini, I., Cheng, P., Fink, S. J., Mitchell, N., Muthusamy, V., Rabbah, R., ... & Tardieu, O. (2017, October). The serverless trilemma: Function composition for serverless computing. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGPLAN International Symposium on New Ideas, New Paradigms, and Reflections on Programming and Software (pp. 89-103).
13. Paščinski, U., Trnkoczy, J., Stankovski, V., Cigale, M., & Gec, S. (2018). QoS-Aware Orchestration of Network Intensive Software Utilities within Software Defined Data Centres: An Architecture and Implementation of a Global Cluster Manager. Journal of Grid Computing, 16, 85-112.
14. Kumar, M. (2018). Serverless computing for the Internet of Things.
15. Simioni, A. (2017). Implementation and evaluation of a container-based software architecture.
16. Komandla, V. Transforming Financial Interactions: Best Practices for Mobile Banking App Design and Functionality to Boost User Engagement and Satisfaction.
17. Gade, K. R. (2018). Real-Time Analytics: Challenges and Opportunities. Innovative Computer Sciences Journal, 4(1).
18. Gade, K. R. (2017). Integrations: ETL vs. ELT: Comparative analysis and best practices. Innovative Computer Sciences Journal, 3(1).
19. Naresh Dulam. The Rise of Kubernetes: Managing Containers in Distributed Systems. Distributed Learning and Broad Applications in Scientific Research, vol. 1, July 2015, pp. 73-94
20. Naresh Dulam. DataOps: Streamlining Data Management for Big Data and Analytics . Distributed Learning and Broad Applications in Scientific Research, vol. 2, Oct. 2016, pp. 28-50
21. Naresh Dulam, et al. Kubernetes Gains Traction: Orchestrating Data Workloads. Distributed Learning and Broad Applications in Scientific Research, vol. 3, May 2017, pp. 69-93
22. Naresh Dulam, et al. Snowflake Vs Redshift: Which Cloud Data Warehouse Is Right for You? . Distributed Learning and Broad Applications in Scientific Research, vol. 4, Oct. 2018, pp. 221-40
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
