240 lines
12 KiB
Markdown
240 lines
12 KiB
Markdown
|
---
|
|||
|
|
stage: none
|
|||
|
|
group: unassigned
|
|||
|
|
comments: false
|
|||
|
|
description: 'Next Runner Auto-scaling Architecture'
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
# Next Runner Auto-scaling Architecture
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## Summary
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
GitLab Runner is a core component of GitLab CI/CD. It makes it possible to run
|
|||
|
|
CI/CD jobs in a reliable and concurrent environment. It has been initially
|
|||
|
|
introduced by Kamil Trzciński in early 2015 to replace a Ruby version of the
|
|||
|
|
same service. GitLab Runner written in Go turned out to be easier to use by the
|
|||
|
|
wider community, it was more efficient and reliable than the previous,
|
|||
|
|
Ruby-based, version.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
In February 2016 Kamil Trzciński [implemented an auto-scaling feature](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-runner/-/merge_requests/53)
|
|||
|
|
to leverage cloud infrastructure to run many CI/CD jobs in parallel. This
|
|||
|
|
feature has become a foundation supporting CI/CD adoption on GitLab.com over
|
|||
|
|
the years, where we now run around 4 million builds per day at peak.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
During the initial implementation a decision was made to use Docker Machine:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
> Is easy to use. Is well documented. Is well supported and constantly
|
|||
|
|
> extended. It supports almost any cloud provider or virtualization
|
|||
|
|
> infrastructure. We need minimal amount of changes to support Docker Machine:
|
|||
|
|
> machine enumeration and inspection. We don't need to implement any "cloud
|
|||
|
|
> specific" features.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
This design choice was crucial for the GitLab Runner success. Since that time
|
|||
|
|
the auto-scaling feature has been used by many users and customers and enabled
|
|||
|
|
rapid growth of CI/CD adoption on GitLab.com.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
We can not, however, continue using Docker Machine. Work on that project [was
|
|||
|
|
paused in July 2018](https://github.com/docker/machine/issues/4537) and there
|
|||
|
|
was no development made since that time (except for some highly important
|
|||
|
|
security fixes). In 2018, after Docker Machine entered the “maintenance mode”,
|
|||
|
|
we decided to create [our own fork](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/ci-cd/docker-machine)
|
|||
|
|
to be able to keep using this and ship fixes and updates needed for our use case.
|
|||
|
|
[On September 26th, 2021 the project got archived](https://github.com/docker/docker.github.io/commit/2dc8b49dcbe85686cc7230e17aff8e9944cb47a5)
|
|||
|
|
and the documentation for it has been removed from the official page. This
|
|||
|
|
means that the original reason to use Docker Machine is no longer valid too.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
To keep supporting our customers and the wider community we need to design a
|
|||
|
|
new mechanism for GitLab Runner autoscaling. It not only needs to support
|
|||
|
|
auto-scaling, but it also needs to do that in the way to enable us to build on
|
|||
|
|
top of it to improve efficiency, reliability and availability.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
We call this new mechanism the “next GitLab Runner Scaling architecture”.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
_Disclaimer The following contain information related to upcoming products,
|
|||
|
|
features, and functionality._
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
_It is important to note that the information presented is for informational
|
|||
|
|
purposes only. Please do not rely on this information for purchasing or
|
|||
|
|
planning purposes._
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
_As with all projects, the items mentioned in this document and linked pages are
|
|||
|
|
subject to change or delay. The development, release and timing of any
|
|||
|
|
products, features, or functionality remain at the sole discretion of GitLab
|
|||
|
|
Inc._
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## Proposal
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Currently, GitLab Runner auto-scaling can be configured in a few ways. Some
|
|||
|
|
customers are successfully using an auto-scaled environment in Kubernetes. We
|
|||
|
|
know that a custom and unofficial GitLab Runner version has been built to make
|
|||
|
|
auto-scaling on Kubernetes more reliable. We recognize the importance of having
|
|||
|
|
a really good Kubernetes solution for running multiple jobs in parallel, but
|
|||
|
|
refinements in this area are out of scope for this architectural initiative.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
We want to focus on resolving problems with Docker Machine and replacing this
|
|||
|
|
mechanism with a reliable and flexible mechanism. We might be unable to build a
|
|||
|
|
drop-in replacement for Docker Machine, as there are presumably many reasons
|
|||
|
|
why it has been deprecated. It is very difficult to maintain compatibility with
|
|||
|
|
so many cloud providers, and it seems that Docker Machine has been deprecated
|
|||
|
|
in favor of Docker Desktop, which is not a viable replacement for us. [This
|
|||
|
|
issue](https://github.com/docker/roadmap/issues/245) contains a discussion
|
|||
|
|
about how people are using Docker Machine right now, and it seems that GitLab
|
|||
|
|
CI is one of the most frequent reasons for people to keep using Docker Machine.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
There is also an opportunity in being able to optionally run multiple jobs in a
|
|||
|
|
single, larger virtual machine. We can’t do that today, but we know that this
|
|||
|
|
can potentially significantly improve efficiency. We might want to build a new
|
|||
|
|
architecture that makes it easier and allows us to test how efficient it is
|
|||
|
|
with PoCs. Running multiple jobs on a single machine can also make it possible
|
|||
|
|
to reuse what we call a “sticky context” - a space for build artifacts / user
|
|||
|
|
data that can be shared between job runs.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### 💡 Design a simple abstraction that users will be able to build on top of
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Because there is no viable replacement and we might be unable to support all
|
|||
|
|
cloud providers that Docker Machine used to support, the key design requirement
|
|||
|
|
is to make it really simple and easy for the wider community to write a custom
|
|||
|
|
GitLab auto-scaling plugin, whatever cloud provider they might be using. We
|
|||
|
|
want to design a simple abstraction that users will be able to build on top, as
|
|||
|
|
will we to support existing workflows on GitLab.com.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The designed mechanism should abstract what Docker Machine executor has been doing:
|
|||
|
|
providing a way to create an external Docker environment, waiting to execute
|
|||
|
|
jobs by provisioning this environment and returning credentials required to
|
|||
|
|
perform these operations.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The new plugin system should be available for all major platforms: Linux,
|
|||
|
|
Windows, MacOS.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### 💡 Migrate existing Docker Machine solution to a plugin
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Once we design and implement the new abstraction, we should be able to migrate
|
|||
|
|
existing Docker Machine mechanisms to a plugin. This will make it possible for
|
|||
|
|
users and customers to immediately start using the new architecture, but still
|
|||
|
|
keep their existing workflows and configuration for Docker Machine. This will
|
|||
|
|
give everyone time to migrate to the new architecture before we drop support
|
|||
|
|
for the legacy auto-scaling entirely.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### 💡 Build plugins for AWS, Google Cloud Platform and Azure
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Although we might be unable to add support for all the cloud providers that
|
|||
|
|
Docker Machine used to support, it seems to be important to provide
|
|||
|
|
GitLab-maintained plugins for the major cloud providers like AWS, Google Cloud
|
|||
|
|
Platform and Azure.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
We should build them, presumably in separate repositories, in a way that they
|
|||
|
|
are easy to contribute to, fork, modify for certain needs the wider community
|
|||
|
|
team members might have. It should be also easy to install a new plugin without
|
|||
|
|
the need of rebuilding GitLab Runner whenever it happens.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### 💡 Write a solid documentation about how to build your own plugin
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
It is important to show users how to build an auto-scaling plugin, so that they
|
|||
|
|
can implement support for their own cloud infrastructure.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Building new plugins should be simple, and with the support of great
|
|||
|
|
documentation it should not require advanced skills, like understanding how
|
|||
|
|
gRPC works. We want to design the plugin system in a way that the entry barrier
|
|||
|
|
for contributing new plugins is very low.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### 💡 Build a PoC to run multiple builds on a single machine
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
We want to better understand what kind of efficiency can running multiple jobs
|
|||
|
|
on a single machine bring. It is difficult to predict that, so ideally we
|
|||
|
|
should build a PoC that will help us to better understand what we can expect
|
|||
|
|
from this.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
To run this experiement we most likely we will need to build an experimental
|
|||
|
|
plugin, that not only allows us to schedule running multiple builds on a single
|
|||
|
|
machine, but also has a set of comprehensive metrics built into it, to make it
|
|||
|
|
easier to understand how it performs.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## Details
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
How the abstraction for the custom provider will look exactly is something that
|
|||
|
|
we will need to prototype, PoC and decide in a data-informed way. There are a
|
|||
|
|
few proposals that we should describe in detail, develop requirements for, PoC
|
|||
|
|
and score. We will choose the solution that seems to support our goals the
|
|||
|
|
most.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
In order to describe the proposals we first need to better explain what part of
|
|||
|
|
the GitLab Runner needs to be abstracted away. To make this easier to grasp
|
|||
|
|
these concepts, let's take a look at the current auto-scaling architecture and
|
|||
|
|
sequence diagram.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
On the diagrams above we see that currently a GitLab Runner Manager runs on a
|
|||
|
|
machine that has access to a cloud provider’s API. It is using Docker Machine
|
|||
|
|
to provision new Virtual Machines with Docker Engine installed and it
|
|||
|
|
configures the Docker daemon there to allow external authenticated requests. It
|
|||
|
|
stores credentials to such ephemeral Docker environments on disk. Once a
|
|||
|
|
machine has been provisioned and made available for GitLab Runner Manager to
|
|||
|
|
run builds, it is using one of the existing executors to run a user-provided
|
|||
|
|
script. In auto-scaling, this is typically done using Docker executor.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### Custom provider
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
In order to reduce the scope of work, we only want to introduce the new
|
|||
|
|
abstraction layer in one place.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
A few years ago we introduced the [Custom Executor](https://docs.gitlab.com/runner/executors/custom.html)
|
|||
|
|
feature in GitLab Runner. It allows users to design custom build execution
|
|||
|
|
methods. The custom executor driver can be implemented in any way - from a
|
|||
|
|
simple shell script to a dedicated binary - that is then used by a Runner
|
|||
|
|
through os/exec system calls.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Thanks to the custom executor abstraction there is no more need to implement
|
|||
|
|
new executors internally in Runner. Users who have specific needs can implement
|
|||
|
|
their own drivers and don’t need to wait for us to make their work part of the
|
|||
|
|
“official” GitLab Runner. As each driver is a separate project, it also makes
|
|||
|
|
it easier to create communities around them, where interested people can
|
|||
|
|
collaborate together on improvements and bug fixes.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
We want to design the new Custom Provider to replicate the success of the
|
|||
|
|
Custom Executor. It will make it easier for users to build their own ways to
|
|||
|
|
provide a context and an environment in which a build will be executed by one
|
|||
|
|
of the Custom Executors.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
There are multiple solutions to implementing a custom provider abstraction. We
|
|||
|
|
can use raw Go plugins, Hashcorp’s Go Plugin, HTTP interface or gRPC based
|
|||
|
|
facade service. There are many solutions, and we want to choose the most
|
|||
|
|
optimal one. In order to do that, we will describe the solutions in a separate
|
|||
|
|
document, define requirements and score the solution accordingly. This will
|
|||
|
|
allow us to choose a solution that will work best for us and the wider
|
|||
|
|
community.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## Status
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Status: RFC.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## Who
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Proposal:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
<!-- vale gitlab.Spelling = NO -->
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
| Role | Who
|
|||
|
|
|------------------------------|------------------------------------------|
|
|||
|
|
| Authors | Grzegorz Bizon, Tomasz Maczukin |
|
|||
|
|
| Architecture Evolution Coach | Kamil Trzciński |
|
|||
|
|
| Engineering Leader | Elliot Rushton, Cheryl Li |
|
|||
|
|
| Product Manager | Darren Eastman, Jackie Porter |
|
|||
|
|
| Domain Expert / Runner | Arran Walker |
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
DRIs:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
| Role | Who
|
|||
|
|
|------------------------------|------------------------|
|
|||
|
|
| Leadership | Elliot Rushton |
|
|||
|
|
| Product | Darren Eastman |
|
|||
|
|
| Engineering | Tomasz Maczukin |
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Domain experts:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
| Area | Who
|
|||
|
|
|------------------------------|------------------------|
|
|||
|
|
| Domain Expert / Runner | Arran Walker |
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
<!-- vale gitlab.Spelling = YES -->
|