3 ms·
One point i never get for companies operating their own hardware: If your problem was having a number of well known servers for the internal management services
by jFriedensreich 6y ago
One point i never get for companies operating their own hardware: If your problem was having a number of well known servers for the internal management services and you then move to a nomad cluster or kubernetes to schedule them dynamically, you end up with the same problem as before to schedule the well known nomad servers or kubernetes masters. So is the only advantage here that the nomad server images update less often than the images of the management services?
- dmwilcox 6y agoNot associated with CloudFlare but I've built similar stuff with Nomad. The cost/maintenance trade-off works when you have more SPOF management hosts than Nomad servers (5). You decrease host images down to 2, Nomad server and client, versus N management images. Though it does sound a bit like they're using config management rather than pre-build images. Bonus, Nomad servers are more failure resistant using Raft consensus versus any N management hosts. And for discovery I found the optimal pattern is to put all of the Nomad servers in a "cluster" A record for clients to easily join (pattern works well for Consul too)