Why Adopting Kubernetes for Application Portability Is Not a Good Idea

By Marco Meinardi in research

This post originally appeared on the Gartner Blog Network.

I often discuss with clients in infrastructure and operations on whether their organizations should adopt Kubernetes to make their applications portable. If you also have this question, the answer is: no.

Actually, the full story: adopt Kubernetes for the many benefits it provides to application development and architecture and get portability as a side effect. But do not make portability your primary driver for adopting the technology. This thesis is well expanded in the document that Richard Watson, Alan Waite and I have crafted during lockdown this spring: “Assessing Kubernetes for Hybrid and Multicloud Application Portability” (paywall).

Kubernetes or not, application portability always comes at a price that you must be willing to pay – the “portability tax”. Gartner’s advice is to make this decision application by application, based on the likelihood that it will be moved in the future, and how fast that needs to happen. In fact, non-portable applications may still be moved, it will just require more time to execute the transformation.

What is the likelihood that applications change infrastructure provider through their lifespan?

Inquiries show that this likelihood is actually very low. Once deployed in a provider, applications tend to stay there. This is due to data lakes being hard – and expensive – to port and, therefore, end up acting as centers of gravity. The figure below shows the Gartner pyramid of portability, which illustrates basic motivations (at the bottom) and more strategic ones (at the top) for designing portable applications.

For each of your application, ask yourself why portability is important to you. Is it to guarantee survivability? To increase your negotiation leverage with the cloud provider? To mitigate vendor lock-in? The higher you are in the pyramid, the least likely it is that you’ll have those needs.

Kubernetes facilitates portability because it helps standardize our software development life cycle and, most importantly, our operating model. However, it also adds management overhead to our organization, it forces us to engage with commercial vendors and to completely rearchitect our applications. Implementing portability with Kubernetes also requires avoiding any dependency that ties the application to the infrastructure provider, such as the use of cloud provider’s native services. Often, these services provide the capabilities that drove us to the cloud in the first place.

In conclusion, the portability tax is high. Make sure to pay it only for applications that truly need it and that are likely to switch infrastructure provider at some point. For all the others, don’t choose Kubernetes on the basis of a universal portability principle, just because it “sounds right”. On the contrary, adopt Kubernetes for agility, scalability and for modernizing your application architectures.

More on this topic in “Assessing Kubernetes for Hybrid and Multicloud Application Portability” (paywall). Should you want to discuss more, feel free to schedule an inquiry call with myself or Alan Waite by emailing inquiry@gartner.com or through your Gartner representative.

Follow me on Twitter (@meinardi) or connect with me on LinkedIn for further updates on my research. Looking forward to talking to you!

AWS Just Made Their Management Tools Ready for Multicloud

By Marco Meinardi in events

This post originally appeared on the Gartner Blog Network.

I am just back home after spending last week at AWS re:Invent in tiresome, noisy, vibrant and excessive Las Vegas. At Gartner, I cover cloud management and governance and I was disappointed not to hear much about it in any of the keynotes. I get it, management can be sometimes perceived as a boring necessity. However, it is also opportunity to make a cloud platform simpler. And that’s something that AWS needs. Badly.

Despite the absence of highlights in the keynotes, I spotted something interesting while digging through the myriad of November announcements. What apparently got lost in the re:Invent noise is that AWS is opening up some of their key management tools to support resources outside of the AWS cloud. Specifically, AWS CloudFormation and AWS Config now support third-party resources. And that’s a big deal.

The Lost Announcements

The CloudFormation announcement reports that AWS has changed the tool’s architecture to implement resource providers, much in line with what Hashicorp Terraform is also doing. Each resource provider is an independent piece of code that enables support in CloudFormation for a specific resource type and API. A resource provider can be developed independently from CloudFormation itself and by nonAWS developers.

AWS plans to promote resource providers through the open source model and has certainly the ability to grow a healthy community around them. The announcement also says that a number of resource providers will be shortly available for third-party solutions. Upcoming solutions include Atlassian, Datadog, Densify, Dynatrace, Fortinet, New Relic and Spotinst. AWS is implementing this capability also for native AWS resources such as EC2 instances or S3 buckets, hinting that this capability may not be just an exception, but a major architectural change.

In the same way, AWS Config now also supports third-party resources. The same resource providers used by CloudFormation enable AWS Config to manage inventory, but also define rules to check for compliance and create conformation packs (a.k.a. collections of rules). All of this also for nonAWS resources.

Why is This a Big Deal?

With this launch, AWS addresses one of the major shortcomings of its management tools: being limited to a single platform – the AWS cloud. From today, anyone could develop resource providers for Microsoft Azure or Google Cloud Platform resources. This possibility makes AWS CloudFormation and AWS Config de facto ready to become multicloud management tools. And we all know what AWS thinks about multicloud, don’t we?

Furthermore, AWS is now challenging the third-party management market, at least within the provisioning and orchestration, inventory and classification and governance domains (see this Gartner framework for reference). AWS CloudFormation now incorporates more capabilities of HashiCorp Terraform. It also can be used to model and execute complex orchestration workflows that organizations normally handle with platforms like ServiceNow. AWS Config can now aim to become a universal CMDB that can keep track of resource inventory and configuration history from anywhere.

Both AWS CloudFormation and AWS Config are widely-adopted tools. Customers could be incented to extend their use beyond AWS instead of selecting a new third-party tool that would require a new contract to sign and new vendor to manage. Does this mean that AWS has issued a death sentence to the third-party management market that makes much of its ecosystem? Certainly not. But these announcements speak to the greater ambition of AWS and will force third-party vendors to find new ways to continue to add value in the long term. Maybe the resource provider ecosystem will not develop, and customers will continue to prefer independent management vendors. Or maybe not.

In conclusion, it was disappointing not to hear this message loud and clear at re:Invent this year, especially compared to the amount of noise we heard around the launches of Google Anthos and Azure Arc. But there is certainly a trend for which all the major providers are preparing their management tools to stretch out of their respective domains. How far they want to go is yet to be determined.

Serverless, Servers and Cloud Management at AWS re:Invent 2017

By Marco Meinardi in events

This post originally appeared in the Gartner Blog Network.

In the last few days, the press has been dominated by countless interpretations of the myriad of AWS re:Invent announcements. Every article I read was trying (hard) to extract some kind of trend or direction from the overall conference. However, it was simply succeeding in providing a single and narrow perspective. AWS have simply tried to position itself as the “everything IT” (as my colleague Lydia Leong said in a tweet). With so many announcements (61, according to AWS), across so many area and in such a short time, it is extremely difficult for anyone to understand their impact without a more thorough analysis.

However, I won’t refrain from giving you also my own perspective, noting down a couple of things that stood out for me.

Serverless took the driver’s seat across the conference, no doubt. But servers did not move back into the trunk as you’d have expected. Lambda got a number of incremental updates. New services went serverless, such as Fargate (containers without the need to manage the orchestrator cluster) and the Aurora database. Finally, Amazon is headed to deliver platform as a service as it should’ve been from day one. A fully multi-tenant abstraction layer that handles your code, and that you pay only when your code is running.

However, we also heard about Nitro, a new lightweight hypervisor that can deliver near-metal performance. Amazon also announced bare-metal instances. These two innovations have been developed to attract more of the humongous number of workloads out there, which still require traditional servers to run. When the future seems to be going serverless, server innovation is still relevant. Why? Because by lowering the hypervisor’s overhead, Nitro can lead to better node density, better utilization and ultimately cost benefits for end users.

With regard to my main area of research, I was not impressed that only a couple of announcements were related to cloud management. Amazon announced an incremental update to CloudTrail (related to Lambda again, by the way) and the expansion of Systems Manager to support more AWS services. Systems Manager is absolutely one step towards what should be a more integrated cloud management experience. However (disclaimer: I’ve not seen it in action yet), my first impression is that it still focuses only on gaining (some) visibility and on automating (some) operational tasks. It’s yet another tool that needs integration with many others.

My cloud management conversations with clients tell me that organizations are struggling to manage and operate their workloads in the public cloud, especially when these live in conjunction with their existing processes and environments. Amazon needs to do more in this space to feel less like just-another-technology-silo and deliver a more unified management experience.

When both Andy Jassy or Werner Vogels were asked about multicloud, they both denied it. They said that most organizations stick with one primary provider for the great majority of their workloads. The reason? Because organizations don’t accept working at the least common denominator (LCD) between providers. Nor they want to become fluent in multiple APIs.

The reality is that multicloud doesn’t necessarily mean having to accept the LCD. Multicloud doesn’t imply having a cloud management platform (CMP) for each and every management task. It doesn’t imply having to make each and every workload portable. The LCD between providers would be indeed too much of a constraint for anyone adopting public cloud services.

On the contrary, we see that many organizations are willing to learn how to operate multiple providers. They want to do that to be able to place their workloads where it makes most sense, but also as a risk mitigation technique. In case they will ever be forced to exit one providers, they want to be ready to transfer their workloads to another one (obviously, with a certain degree of effort). Nobody wants to be constrained to work at the LCD level, but this is not a good excuse to stay single-cloud.

Amazon continues to innovate at an incredible pace, which seems to accelerate every year. AWS re:Invent 2017 was no exception. Now, organizations have more cloud services to support their business. But they also have many more choices to make. Picking the right combination of cloud services and tools is becoming a real challenge for organizations. Will Amazon do something about it? Or shall we expect hundreds of more service announcements at re:Invent 2018?

Why developers won’t go straight to the source

By Marco Meinardi in research 0 Comment

I’m so excited. On last Wednesday Flexiant has announced the acquisition of the Tapp technology platform and business. I met the guys behind it quite a while ago and I have never refrained from remarking how great their technology is (see here). I recognized a trend in their way of addressing the cloud management problem and I’m so glad to be part of, right now.

Disclaimer. I am currently working for Flexiant as Vice President Products. I have endorsed this acquisition and I am fully behind the reasons and convinced of the potential of it. This is my personal blog and whatever you read here has not been agreed with my employer in advance and therefore it represents my very personal opinion.

Right after the acquisition (read more about it here) we’ve heard tremendous noise on social networks and the press. David Meyer (@superglaze) of GigaOm in particular wrote up a few interesting comments and he picked up well the reasoning behind it, but he also ended the article with an open question:

“This [the Tapp technology platform] would help such players [Service Providers] appeal to certain developers that are currently just heading straight for EC2 or Google.
 
Of course, this is ultimately the challenge for the likes of Flexiant – can anything stop those developers going straight to the source? That question remains unanswered.”

Well, I’d like to answer that question and say why I’m actually convinced there is a lot of value to add for multi-cloud managers.

Much has been written these days from the business side of the acquisition and I don’t have anything meaningful to add. Instead, I would like to raise a few interesting points from a technology point of view (that’s my job, after all) and unveil those values that are maybe not so obvious at the first sight.

Multi-cloud management

Multi-cloud management per se has a very large meaning spectrum. There are multi-cloud managers brokerage, therefore primarily on getting you the best deal out there. Despite this is a good example about how to provide a “multi-cloud” value, I’m still wondering how they can actually find a way to compare apples with oranges. In fact, cloud infrastructure service offerings are so different and heterogeneous that being simply a cloud broker will make it extremely difficult to succeed, deliver real value and differentiate. So, point number one: Tapp isn’t a cloud brokerage technology platform.

Other multi-cloud managers deliver value by adding a management layer on top of existing cloud infrastructures. This management layer may be focused on specific verticals like scaling Internet applications (e.g. Rightscale) or providing enterprise governance (e.g. Enstratius, now Dell Multicloud Manager). By choosing a vertical, they can address specific requirements, cut off the unnecessary stuff from the general purpose cloud provider and enhance the user experience of very specific use cases. That’s indeed a fair point but not yet what Tapp is all about.

So why, when using Tapp, developers won’t “go straight to the source”? Well, first of all, let’s make clear that developers are already at the source. In fact, to use any multi-cloud manager you need an AWS account or a Rackspace account (or any other supported provider account). You need to configure your API keys in order to enable to communication with the cloud provider of choice. So if someone is using your multi-cloud manager, it means that he prefers it over the management layer provided by the “the source”.

The cloud provider lock-in

One of the reasons behind Amazon’s success is the large portfolio of services they rolled out. They’re all services that can be put together by end users to build applications, letting developers focus just on their core business logic, without worrying too much about queuing, notifying, load balancing, scaling or monitoring. However, whenever you use one of the tools like ELB, Route53, CloudWatch or DynamoDB you’re locking yourself into Amazon. The more you use multi-tenant proprietary services that exist only on a specific provider, you won’t be able to easily migrate your application away.

You may claim to be “happy” to be locked in a vendor who’s actually solving your problems so well, but there are a lot of good reasons (“Why Cloud Lock-in is a Bad Idea“) to avoid vendor lock-in as a principle. Many times, this is one of the first requirements of those enterprises that everyone is trying to attract into the cloud.

Deploying the complete application toolkit

Imagine there could be a way to replicate those services onto another cloud provider by building them up from ground up on top of some virtual servers. Imagine this could be done by a management layer, on demand, on your cloud infrastructure of choice. Imagine you could consume and control those services using always the same API. That would enable your application to be deployed in a consistent manner across multiple clouds, exclusively relying on the possibility to spin up some virtual servers, which you can find in every cloud infrastructure provider.

This is what Tapp is about. And the advantages of doing that are not trivial, these include:

1. Independency, consistency and compatibility

This is the obvious one. For instance, a user can click a button to deploy an application on Rackspace and another button to deploy a DNS manager and a load balancer. These two would provide an API that is directly integrated into the control panel and therefore consumable as-a-service. Now, the exact same thing can be also done on Amazon, Azure, Joyent or any other supported provider, obtaining the exact same result. Cloud providers became suddenly compatible.

2. Extra geographical reach

Let’s say you like Joyent but you want to deploy your application closer to a part of your user base that lives where Joyent doesn’t have a data center. But look, Amazon has one there and, despite you don’t like its pricing, you’re ready to make an exception to gain some latency advantages to serve your user base. If your application is using some of the Joyent proprietary tools, it would be extremely difficult to replicate it on Amazon. Instead, if you could deploy the whole toolkit using just some EC2 instances, then it all becomes possible.

3. Software-as-a-(single)-tenant

If multi-tenancy has been considered as a key point of Cloud Computing, I started to believe that maybe as long as an end user can consume an application as-a-service, who cares if it’s multi-tenant or single-tenant.

If you can deploy a database in a few clicks and have your connector as a result, does it really matter if this database is also hosting other customers or not? Actually, single-tenancy would become the preferred option1 as he would not have to be worried about isolation from other customers, noisy neighbors, et al. Tony Lucas (@tonylucas) wrote about this before on the Flexiant blog and I think he’s spot on, there is a “third” way and that’s what I think it’s going mainstream.

The Tapp’s way

The Tapp technology platform was built to provide all of that. A large set of application-centric tools, features and functions2 that can be deployed across multiple clouds and consumed as-a-service.

Of course it’s not just about tools. It’s also about the application core, whatever it is. The Tapp technology solves also that consistency problem by pushing the application deployment and configuration into some Chef recipes, as opposed to cloud provider-specific OS images or templates3. Every time you run those recipes you get the same result, in any cloud provider. In fact, to deploy your application you’ll just need the availability of vanilla OS images, like Ubuntu 14.04 or Windows 2012 R2 that, honestly, are offered by any cloud provider.

All those end users who want to deploy applications without feeling locked in a specific providers, today had only one way of doing it: DIY (“do-it-yourself”). They would have to maintain and operate OS images, load balancers, DNS servers, monitors, auto-scalers, etc. That’s a burden that, most of the time, they’re not ready to take. They don’t want to spend time deploying all those services that end up being all the same, all the time. Tapp takes away that burden from them. It deploys applications and service toolkits in an automated fashion and provides users just with the API to control them. And this API is consistent, independently from the chosen cloud provider. This is the key value that, I believe, will prevent developers from going straight to the source.

1. Multi-tenancy would be the preferred option for the Service Provider because this would translate into economies of scale. However, economies of scale often obtain cost optimisation and end user price reduction and, therefore, it can be considered an indirect advantage for end customers as well.↩

2. Tapp features include: application blueprinting with Chef, geo-DNS management and load balancing, networking load balancing, auto-scaling based on application performance, application monitoring, object storage and FDN (file delivery network).↩

3. It worths mentioning that pushing the deployment of application into configuration management tools like Chef or Puppet significantly affects the deployment time. That’s why it’s strongly advised to find the optimal balance between what is built-in the OS image and what is left to the configuration management tool.↩