Architecting on AWS: Optimising the application design

In our practice we hear a variety of misconceptions and misinterpretations in relation to the benefits of moving workloads ‘into the cloud’. You should be very vary if someone wants to make you believe that the pure migration of a traditional application to a cloud services vendor will make it any more scalable or reliable. Of course, you can scale vertically in increasing the size of your compute nodes. However, this still restricts you to the maximum size of instances available. Scaling horizontally on the other hand, in distributing your workload over multiple instances, requires special considerationswith regard to optimizing the application design.

As part of your migration strategy you should also critically review your existing application components and consider if any of the high level capabilities provided by your cloud vendor can deliver the same functionality at reduced cost, increased reliability, higher flexibility, et cetera. This story from marketing software provider Moz also serves as a timely reminder that your mileage may vary depending on the type of your workload and non-functional requirements. Therefore we can only provide a general guide as each option needs to be considered against its advantages and disadvantages against the overall solution.

Please note that we tend to angle our posts along the service catalogue of Amazon Web Services (AWS). However, most of the strategies and patterns we describe will also apply to other cloud vendors that provide capabilities with similar characteristics. With that in mind, let’s review our two tier example application from the first post in this series. To support the elasticity and reliability of our solution, we should consider a few concerns from the application perspective.

Optimizing the application design: session management

In the design we are using the Elastic Load Balancer (ELB) for the distribution of load between instances. By default, the ELB routes each request to the instance with the smallest load. This is also referred to stateless load balancing and needs to be considered in the design of your application. Unless you are having strong reasons to store your session state in memory on the web server, you should migrate to an external session provider. A common approach for this is the use of a session table within a relational database system. However, this doesn’t come without risks as the database system may be unnecessary flooded with session requests. This is potentially impacting on the overall performance of the application and causing scalability issues in the database tier.

On AWS you are better off to use DynamoDB. Amazon DynamoDB is a key-value data store (with recently added support for document data model) which delivers configurable, predictable performance. For that reason DynamoDB is an ideal candidate to consider for the management of session state. As a fully managed service you won’t even have to worry about any operational or administrative cost.

Optimizing the application design

A word on RDS and scaling

If you are an observant reader you may have already spotted a snag. If you really want your overall solution to be truly scalable, you need to ensure that this is applied to each tier of the application. This is posing a couple of issues in the traditional relational database space. While you have the ability to ‘crank-up’ the amount of provisioned IOPS for your RDS instances, there is no ability to autoscale database instances in the same fashion as EC2.

A common design pattern is the separation of write operations from read operations. By the general nature of storage systems read operations tend to be proportionally higher than database write operations. For that reason you can offload read requests to a dedicated (set of) read replicas to provide some level of scalability. Based on the underlying design limitations within the storage engines though, this cannot be provided fully automated. Amongst other limitations we also need to highlight that the support of read replicas in RDS is limited to MySQL, PostgreSQL and the new Aurora storage engines.

Alternative database technologies

All this is obviously not going to be an issue for you if you are dealing with very steady and predictable workloads. If you do have the need to deliver a scalable solution though, you will eventually get to the stage where you need to consider alternative mechanisms to reduce the load on your relational database environment. An obvious choice would be the consideration of alternative database technologies like Amazon DynamoDB or Amazon SimpleDB for the data that doesn’t require a relational structure.

Content distribution

You can also reduce the strain on your application and database services in employing caching services like Amazon CloudFront. As described earlier, CloudFront provides a large number of edge locations across the globe that act like a massive cache for web and streaming content. The cache behaviour settings allow you to optimise the cache behaviour for the unique needs of your application. As an added bonus this will also improve the overall user experience for your customers.

Optimizing the application design

Object storage

Finally we briefly want to touch on the Amazon S3 storage service. Again, many traditional application designs make us of relational or file system resources for the storage of BLOB objects. While you can certainly continue on that path, we recommend to rethink that approach for a number of reasons. For one, you obviously need to continue to provide and manage your own file system or relational database environment. You also have to ensure that the systems are always up-to-date, ensure that you have got enough available disk space available and the systems are actually available to meet your service level agreements.

If those operational reasons haven’t put you off yet, you may want to consider the actual costs for storage. Based on the figures for my ‘home’ region Sydney, the cost of storing 100 GByte of data on S3 is approximately 30% of the cost of Elastic Block Storage or RDS. And the pure cost of storage doesn’t even include the cost for utility compute to power the relational database or file system environments. So unless there is a specific need for a direct attached, high performing local disk e.g. for the hosting of a COTS solution like SAP, we strongly recommend to consider the use of the S3 object store where applicable.

With those initial teasers in mind you should start exploring the AWS service catalogue and our rich training content on CloudAcademy to consider what other services you could utilise to address the unique concerns of your solution.

DISCLOSURE: This post has originally been created for and sponsored by CloudAcademy.com.

Architecting on AWS: the best services to build a two-tier application

The notion of a scalable, on-demand, pay-as-you go cloud infrastructure tends to be easy understood by the majority of today’s IT specialists. However, in order to fully reap the benefits from hosting solutions in the cloud you will have to rethink traditional ‘on-premises’ design approaches. This should happen for a variety of reasons with the most prominent ones the design-for-costs or the adoption of a design-for-failure approach.

This is the first of a series of posts in which we will introduce you to a variety of entry-level AWS services on the example of architecting on AWS to build a common two-tier application deployment (e.g. mod_php LAMP). We will use the architecture to explain common infrastructure and application design patterns pertaining to cloud infrastructure.
To start things off we provide you with a high level overview of the system and a brief description of the utilised services.

Architecting on AWS

Virtual Private Cloud (VPC)

The VPC allows you to deploy services into segmented networks to reduce the vulnerability of your services to malicious attacks from the internet. Separating the network into public and private subnets allows you to safeguard the data tier behind a firewall and to only connect the web tier directly to the public internet. The VPC service provides flexible configuration options for routing and traffic management rules.  Use an Internet Gateway to enabls connectivity to the Internet for resources that are deployed within public subnets.

Redundancy

In our reference design we have spread all resources across two availability zones (AZ) to provide for redundancy and resilience to cater for unexpected outages or scheduled system maintenance. As such, each availability zone is hosting at least one instance per service, except for services that are redundant by design (e.g. Simple Storage Service, Elastic Load Balancer, Rote 53, etc.).

Web tier

Our web tier consists of two web servers (one in each availability zone) that are deployed on Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2) instances. We balance external traffic to the servers using Elastic Load Balancers (ELB). Dynamic scaling policies allow you to elastically scale the environment in adding or removing web instances to the auto scaling group. Amazon Cloud Watch allows us to monitor demand on our environment and triggers scaling events using Cloud Watch alarms.

Database tier

Amazon’s managed Relational Database Service (RDS) provides the relational (MySQL, MS SQL or Oracle) environment for this solution. In this reference design it is established as multi-AZ deployment. The multi-AZ deployment includes a standby RDS instance in the second availability zone, which provides us with increased availability and durability for the database service in synchronously replicating all data to the standby instance.
Optionally we can also provision read replicas to reduce the demand on the master database. To optimise costs, our initial deployment may only include the master and slave RDS instances, with additional read replicas created in each AZ as dictated by the demand.

Object store

Our file objects are stored in Amazon’s Simple Storage Service (S3). Objects within S3 are managed in buckets, which provide virtually unlimited storage capacity. Object Lifecycle Management within an S3 bucket allows us to archive (transition) data to the more cost effective Amazon Glacier service and/or the removal (expiration) of objects from the storage service based on policies.

Latency and user experience

For minimised latency and an enhanced user experience for our world-wide user base, we utilise Amazon’s CloudFront content distribution network. CloudFront maintains a large number of edge locations across the globe. An edge location acts like a massive cache for web and streaming content.

Infrastructure management, monitoring and access control

Any AWS account should be secured using Amazon’s Identity and Access Management (IAM). IAM allows for the creation of users, groups and permissions to provide granular, role based access control over all resources hosted within AWS.
The provisioning of above solution to the regions is achieved in using Amazon CloudFormation. CloudFormation supports the provisioning and management of AWS services and resources using scriptable templates. Once created, CloudFormation also updates the provisioned environment based on changes made to the ‘scripted infrastructure definition’.
We use the Route 53 domain name service for the registration and management of our Internet domain.

In summary, we have introduced you to a variety of AWS services, each of which has been chosen to address one or multiple specific concern in regards to functional and non-functional requirements of the overall system. In our upcoming posts we’ll investigate a number of above services in more detail, discussing major design considerations and trade-offs in selecting the right service for your solution. In the meantime you can start to learn more about the individual AWS services using the courses that are available from CloudAcademy.

DISCLOSURE: This post has originally been created for and sponsored by CloudAcademy.com.