In
terms of cloud computing in application environments, elasticity is
perhaps one of the more alluring and potentially beneficial aspects of
this new delivery model. I'm sure that to many of those responsible for
the operational and administrative aspects of these application
environments, the idea that applications and associated infrastructure
grows and shrinks based purely on demand, without human intervention
mind you, sounds close to a utopia. While I would never dispute that
such capability can make life easier and your environments much more
responsive and efficient, it's important to define what elasticity
means for you before you embark down this path. In this way, you can
balance your expectations against any proposed solutions.
For me, the idea of elastic application environments starts with the
implication that there is some sort of policy or service level
agreement (SLA) that determines when to grow and when to shrink.
However, just having the capability to govern your runtime with SLAs
isn't enough. The SLAs should be applicable to performance metrics directly related
to your applications. For example, it may be nice to be able to make
operational decisions in your application environment based on the CPU
usage of the physical machines supporting that environment, however it
is much nicer to make those same decisions based on the average
response time for requests sent to your application instances or
perhaps the average time a particular message waits in your
application's queue. When you have the ability to define SLAs based on
these kinds of application performance metrics you can remove a lot of
ambiguity that otherwise could creep in when making
expansion/contraction decisions.
What's obvious is that there's no reason to have SLAs that cannot be
enforced. When I think about SLA enforcement there are a couple of
things that come to mind. The first is that the party responsible for
enforcement should be configurable. In many cases you may want your
application environment to grow and shrink based on the system's
autonomic enforcement of SLAs, but I doubt this will always be the
case. For example, if you are running in a pay-for-use public cloud
environment, you may, in an attempt to keep costs under control, want
to insert a manual approval process before the system grows. As another
example, you may insert manual approval processes for contracting
application environments in a production setting where demand
fluctuates wildly. In any case, the ability to configure who is
responsible for SLA enforcement is useful.
The second thing that comes to mind with respect to SLA enforcement
is that you should be able to prioritize such enforcement. The ability
to prioritize SLA enforcement means that you can ensure that conditions
in some applications warrant a faster response than in other
applications. This is just an acknowledgment that not all applications
are created equally. Obviously if a user-facing, revenue-generating
application starts to violate its SLA you want that condition addressed
before you address any SLA slippage in an internal environment.
Besides the ability to define and enforce SLAs, there are certainly other capabilities that contribute to the robustness of a truly elastic application environment.
One area that warrants attention is the degree to which application
health monitoring and maintenance can be automated. For instance, when
an application begins to leak memory and response times slow to the
point that SLAs are violated, it may be more efficient to automatically
address the leak by say restarting the application as opposed to adding
more application instances.
These are just a few of what I'm sure are many facets that
contribute to elasticity in an application environment. They happen to
be the ones that bubble to the top for me, but I have no doubt there
are others that may be more important for you. If you have your own
ideas for elastic application environments I'd like to hear them.
Thursday, 28 January 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment