preload
Apr 25

“It’s a great time to be in Information Technology.” While this is a true statement, not everyone clearly understands why (or perhaps, has the fortitude to make it so). In the face of a massive movement to public cloud—by 2020, 92% of world’s workloads will be in cloud—68% in public and 32% in private[1]—many in IT feel their value in the workplace eroding along with their identity. This feeling doesn’t need to be reality. Businesses are changing the way they operate and are transforming to leverage information technology more strategically. IT has a real opportunity to lead this transformation, not let the transformation happen to them. Continue reading »

Mar 11

Ship with tug (source: tpsdave via Pixabay).

Cloud-native applications are designed to draw upon the performance, scalability, and reliability benefits of distributed systems. Unfortunately, distributed systems often come at the cost of added complexity. As individual components of your application are distributed across networks, and those networks have communication gaps or experience degraded performance, your distributed application components need to continue to function independently.

To avoid inconsistencies in application state, distributed systems should be designed with an understanding that components will fail. Nowhere is this more prominent than in the network. Consequently, at their core, distributed systems rely heavily on load balancing—the distribution of requests across two or more systems—in order to be resilient in the face of network disruption and horizontally scale as system load fluctuates. Continue reading »

Tagged with:
Sep 16

glen-canyon

Originally published on The New Stack on Sept. 4th, 2016.

There are two proposed standards for configuring network interfaces for Linux containers: the container network model (CNM) and the container network interface (CNI). Networking is complex, and there are many ways to deliver functionality. Arguments can be made as to which one is easier to adopt than the next, or which one is less tethered to their benefactor’s technology.

When evaluating any technology, some important considerations are community adoption and support. Some perspectives have been formed on which model has a lower barrier to entry. Finding the right metrics to determine the velocity of a project is tricky. Plugin vendors also need to consider the relative ease by which plugins may be written for either of these two models. Continue reading »

Tagged with:
Sep 14

container-rope

Originally published on The New Stack on Sept. 4th, 2016.

While many gravitate toward network overlays as a popular approach to addressing container networking across hosts, the functions and types of container networking vary greatly and are worth better understanding as you consider the right type for your environment. Some types are container engine-agnostic, and others are locked into a specific vendor or engine. Some focus on simplicity, while others on breadth of functionality or on being IPv6-friendly and multicast-capable. Which one is right for you depends on your application needs, performance requirements, workload placement (private or public cloud), etc. Let’s review the more commonly available types of container networking.

There are various ways in which container-to-container and container-to-host connectivity are provided. This article focuses primarily on a breakdown of current container networking types, including:

  • None
  • Bridge
  • Overlay
  • Underlay

Continue reading »

Tagged with:
Previous Entries