Tag Archives: AWS Well-Architected Framework

Introducing the new AWS Well-Architected Machine Learning Lens

Post Syndicated from Haleh Najafzadeh original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/architecture/introducing-the-new-aws-well-architected-machine-learning-lens/

The AWS Well-Architected Framework provides you with a formal approach to compare your workloads against best practices. It also includes guidance on how to make improvements.

Machine learning (ML) algorithms discover and learn patterns in data, and construct mathematical models to predict future data. These solutions can revolutionize lives through better diagnoses of diseases, environmental protections, products and services transformation, and more.

Your ML models depend on the quality of input data to generate accurate results. As data changes over time, monitoring is required to continuously detect, correct, and mitigate issues. This improves accuracy and performance. It also may require you to retrain your model with the latest refined data.

Application workloads rely on step-by-step instructions to solve a problem. ML workloads enable algorithms to learn from data through an iterative and continuous cycle. We are announcing a brand-new version of the AWS Well-Architected Machine Learning Lens whitepaper. It complements and builds upon the Well-Architected Framework to address this difference between these two types of workloads.

The whitepaper provides you with a set of established cloud and technology agnostic best practices. You can apply this guidance and architectural principles when designing your ML workloads, or after your workloads have entered production as part of continuous improvement. The paper includes guidance and resources to help you implement these best practices on AWS.

The Well-Architected Machine Learning Lens components

The Lens includes four focus areas:

1. The Well-Architected Machine Learning Design Principles — A set of considerations that are used as the basis for a Well-Architected ML workload. These design principles are the guiding light for the collection of the best practices in the ML Lens.

2. The Well-Architected Machine Learning Lifecycle — This integrates the Well-Architected Framework into the Machine Learning Lifecycle as can be seen in figure 1.

    • The Well-Architected Framework pillars includes:
      1. Operational Excellence
      2. Security
      3. Reliability
      4. Performance Efficiency
      5. Cost Optimization
    • The Machine Learning Lifecycle phases referenced in the ML Lens include:
      1. Business goal identification
      2. ML problem framing
      3. Data processing (data collection, data pre-processing, feature engineering)
      4. Model development (training, tuning, evaluation)
      5. Model deployment (prediction, inference)
      6. Model monitoring
Figure 1. Well-Architected Machine Learning Lifecycle

Figure 1. Well-Architected Machine Learning Lifecycle

In the Well-Architected ML Lens whitepaper, the Well-Architected Machine Learning Lifecycle applies the Well-Architected Framework pillars to each of the lifecycle phases.

3. Cloud and technology agnostic best practices — These are best practices for each ML lifecycle phase across the Well-Architected Framework pillars. Best practices are accompanied by:

    • Implementation guidance that provides AWS implementation plans for each best practice with references to AWS technologies and resources.
    • Resources as a set of links to AWS documents, blogs, videos, and code examples as supporting resources to the best practices and their implementation plans.

4. ML Lifecycle architecture diagrams — These illustrate processes, technologies, and components that support many of the best practices, shown in Figure 2. They include: Feature stores, Model Registry, lineage tracker, alarm manager, scheduler, and more. Different pipeline technologies are illustrated using these architecture diagrams.

Figure 2. Machine Learning Lifecycle phases with expanded components

Figure 2. Machine Learning Lifecycle phases with expanded components

Where should you apply the Well-Architected Machine Learning Lens?

Use the Well-Architected ML Lens to:

  • Make informed decisions — Plan early and make informed decisions by reviewing best practices before a new workload design begins.
  • Build and deploy faster — Use the best practices to guide you through building new Well-Architected workloads across the ML lifecycle.
  • Lower or mitigate risks — Evaluate existing workloads regularly to identify, mitigate, and address potential issues early.
  • Learn AWS best practices — Use the provided implementation plans as guidance on implementing the best practices on AWS.

Conclusion

The new Well-Architected Machine Learning Lens whitepaper is available now. Use the Lens to help ensure that your ML workloads are architected with operational excellence, security, reliability, performance efficiency, and cost optimization in mind.

Special thanks to everyone across the AWS Solution Architecture and Machine Learning communities.  These contributions encompassed diverse perspectives, expertise, and experiences in developing the new AWS Well-Architected Machine Learning Lens.

How NortonLifelock built a serverless architecture for real-time analysis of their VPN usage metrics

Post Syndicated from Madhu Nunna original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/big-data/how-nortonlifelock-built-a-serverless-architecture-for-real-time-analysis-of-their-vpn-usage-metrics/

This post presents a reference architecture and optimization strategies for building serverless data analytics solutions on AWS using Amazon Kinesis Data Analytics. In addition, this post shows the design approach that the engineering team at NortonLifeLock took to build out an operational analytics platform that processes usage data for their VPN services, consuming petabytes of data across the globe on a daily basis.

NortonLifeLock is a global cybersecurity and internet privacy company that offers services to millions of customers for device security, and identity and online privacy for home and family. NortonLifeLock believes the digital world is only truly empowering when people are confident in their online security. NortonLifeLock has been an AWS customer since 2014.

For any organization, the value of operational data and metrics decreases with time. This lost value can equate to lost revenue and wasted resources. Real-time streaming analytics helps capture this value and provide new insights that can create new business opportunities.

AWS offers a rich set of services that you can use to provide real-time insights and historical trends. These services include managed Hadoop infrastructure services on Amazon EMR as well as serverless options such as Kinesis Data Analytics and AWS Glue.

Amazon EMR also supports multiple programming options for capturing business logic, such as Spark Streaming, Apache Flink, and SQL.

As a customer, it’s important to understand organizational capabilities, project timelines, business requirements, and AWS service best practices in order to define an optimal architecture from performance, cost, security, reliability, and operational excellence perspectives (the five pillars of the AWS Well-Architected Framework).

NortonLifeLock is taking a methodical approach to real-time analytics on AWS while using serverless technology to deliver on key business drivers such as time to market and total cost of ownership. In addition to NortonLifeLock’s implementation, this post provides key lessons learned and best practices for rapid development of real-time analytics workloads.

Business problem

NortonLifeLock offers a VPN product as a freemium service to users. Therefore, they need to enforce usage limits in real time to stop freemium users from using the service when their usage is over the limit. The challenge for NortonLifeLock is to do this in a reliable and affordable fashion.

NortonLifeLock runs its VPN infrastructure in almost all AWS Regions. Migrating to AWS from smaller hosting vendors has greatly improved user experience and VPN edge server performance, including a reduction in connection latency, time to connect and connection errors, faster upload and download speed, and more stability and uptime for VPN edge servers.

VPN usage data is collected by VPN edge servers and uploaded to backend stats servers every minute and persisted in backend databases. The usage information serves multiple purposes:

  • Displaying how much data a device has consumed for the past 30 days.
  • Enforcing usage limits on freemium accounts. When a user exhausts their free quota, that user is unable to connect through VPN until the next free cycle.
  • Analyzing usage data by the internal business intelligence (BI) team based on time, marketing campaigns, and account types, and using this data to predict future growth, ability to retain users, and more.

Design challenge

NortonLifeLock had the following design challenges:

  • The solution must be able to simultaneously satisfy both real-time and batch analysis.
  • The solution must be economical. NortonLifeLock VPN has hundreds of thousands of concurrent users, and if a user’s usage information is persisted as it comes in, it results in tens of thousands of reads and writes per second and tens of thousands of dollars a month in database costs.

Solution overview

NortonLifeLock decided to split storage into two parts by storing usage data in Amazon DynamoDB for real-time access and in Amazon Simple Storage Service (Amazon S3) for analysis, which addresses real-time enforcement and BI needs. Kinesis Data Analytics aggregates and loads data to Amazon S3 and DynamoDB. With Amazon Kinesis Data Streams and AWS Lambda as consumers of Kinesis Data Analytics, the implementation of user and device-level aggregations was simplified.

To keep costs down, user usage data was aggregated by the hour and persisted in DynamoDB. This spread hundreds of thousands of writes over an hour and reduced DynamoDB cost by 30 times.

Although increasing aggregation might not be an option for other problem domains, it’s acceptable in this case because it’s not necessary to be precise to the minute for user usage, and it’s acceptable to calculate and enforce the usage limit every hour.

The following diagram illustrates the high-level architecture. The solution is broken into three logical parts:

  • End-users – Real-time queries from devices to display current usage information (how much data is used daily)
  • Business analysts – Query historical usage information through Amazon Athena to extract business insights
  • Usage limit enforcement – Usage data ingestion and aggregation in real time

The solution has the following workflow:

  1. Usage data is collected by a VPN edge server and sends it to the backend service through Application Load Balancer.
  2. A single usage data record sent by the VPN edge server contains usage data for many users. A stats splitter splits the message into individual usage stats per user and forwards the message to Kinesis Data Streams.
  3. Usage data is consumed by both the legacy stats processor and the new Apache Flink application developed and deployed on Kinesis Data Analytics.
  4. The Apache Flink application carries out the following tasks:
    1. Aggregate device usage data hourly and send the aggregated result to Amazon S3 and the outgoing Kinesis data stream, which is picked up by a Lambda function that persists the usage data in DynamoDB.
    2. Aggregate device usage data daily and send the aggregated result to Amazon S3.
    3. Aggregate account usage data hourly and forward the aggregated results to the outgoing data stream, which is picked up by a Lambda function that checks if account usage is over the limit for that account. If account usage is over the limit, the function forwards the account information to another Lambda function, via Amazon Simple Queue Service (Amazon SQS), to cut off access on that account.

Design journey

NortonLifeLock needed a solution that was capable of real-time streaming and batch analytics. Kinesis Data Analysis fits this requirement because of the following key features:

  • Real-time streaming and batch analytics for data aggregation
  • Fully managed with a pay-as-you-go model
  • Auto scaling

NortonLifeLock needed Kinesis Data Analytics to do the following:

  • Aggregate customer usage data per device hourly and send results to Kinesis Data Streams (ultimately to DynamoDB) and the data lake (Amazon S3)
  • Aggregate customer usage data per account hourly and send results to Kinesis Data Streams (ultimately to DynamoDB and Lambda, which enforces usage limit)
  • Aggregate customer usage data per device daily and send results to the data lake (Amazon S3)

The legacy system processes usage data from an incoming Kinesis data stream, and they plan to use Kinesis Data Analytics to consume and process production data from the same stream. As such, NortonLifeLock started with SQL applications on Kinesis Data Analytics.

First attempt: Kinesis Data Analytics for SQL

Kinesis Data Analytics with SQL provides a high-level SQL-based abstraction for real-time stream processing and analytics. It’s configuration driven and very simple to get started. NortonLifeLock was able to create a prototype from scratch, get to production, and process the production load in less than 2 weeks. The solution met 90% of the requirements, and there were alternates for the remaining 10%.

However, they started to receive “read limit exceeded” alerts from the source data stream, and the legacy application was read throttled. With Amazon Support’s help, they traced the issues to the drastic reversal of the Kinesis Data Analytics MillisBehindLatest metric in Kinesis record processing. This was correlated to the Kinesis Data Analytics auto scaling events and application restarts, as illustrated by the following diagram. The highlighted areas show the correlation between spikes due to autoscaling and reversal of MillisBehindLatest metrics.

Here’s what happened:

  • Kinesis Data Analytics for SQL scaled up KPU due to load automatically, and the Kinesis Data Analytics application was restarted (part of scaling up).
  • Kinesis Data Analytics for SQL supports the at least once delivery model and uses checkpoints to ensure no data loss. But it doesn’t support taking a snapshot and restoring from the snapshot after a restart. For more details, see Delivery Model for Persisting Application Output to an External Destination.
  • When the Kinesis Data Analytics for SQL application was restarted, it needed to reprocess data from the beginning of the aggregation window, resulting in a very large number of duplicate records, which led to a dramatic increase in the Kinesis Data Analytics MillisBehindLatest metric.
  • To catch up with incoming data, Kinesis Data Analytics started re-reading from the Kinesis data stream, which led to over-consumption of read throughput and the legacy application being throttled.

In summary, Kinesis Data Analytics for SQL’s duplicates record processing on restarts, no other means to eliminate duplicates, and limited ability to control auto scaling led to this issue.

Although they found Kinesis Data Analytics for SQL easy to get started, these limitations demanded other alternatives. NortonLifeLock reached out to the Kinesis Data Analytics team and discussed the following options:

  • Option 1 – AWS was planning to release a new service, Kinesis Data Analytics Studio for SQL, Python, and Scala, which addresses these limitations. But this service was still a few months away (this service is now available, launched May 27, 2021).
  • Option 2 – The alternative was to switch to Kinesis Data Analytics for Apache Flink, which also provides the necessary tools to address all their requirements.

Second attempt: Kinesis Data Analytics for Apache Flink

Apache Flink has a comparatively steep learning curve (we used Java for streaming analytics instead of SQL), and it took about 4 weeks to build the same prototype, deploy it to Kinesis Data Analytics, and test the application in production. NortonLifeLock had to overcome a few hurdles, which we document in this section along with the lessons learned.

Challenge 1: Too many writes to outgoing Kinesis data stream

The first thing they noticed was that the write threshold on the outgoing Kinesis data stream was greatly exceeded. Kinesis Data Analytics was attempting to write 10 times the amount of expected data to the data stream, with 95% of data throttled.

After a lengthy investigation, it turned out that having too much parallelism in the Kinesis Data Analytics application led to this issue. They had followed default recommendations and set parallelism to 12 and it scaled up to 16. This means that every hour, 16 separate threads were attempting to write to the destination data stream simultaneously, leading to massive contention and writes throttled. These threads attempted to retry continuously, until all records were written to the data stream. This resulted in 10 times the amount of data processing attempted, even though only one tenth of the writes eventually succeeded.

The solution was to reduce parallelism to 4 and disable auto scaling. In the preceding diagram, the percentage of throttled records dropped to 0 from 95% after they reduced parallelism to 4 in the Kinesis Data Analytics application. This also greatly improved KPU utilization and reduced Kinesis Data Analytics cost from $50 a day to $8 a day.

Challenge 2: Use Kinesis Data Analytics sink aggregation

After tuning parallelism, they still noticed occasional throttling by Kinesis Data Streams because of the number of records being written, not record size. To overcome this, they turned on Kinesis Data Analytics sink aggregation to reduce the number of records being written to the data stream, and the result was dramatic. They were able to reduce the number of writes by 1,000 times.

Challenge 3: Handle Kinesis Data Analytics Flink restarts and the resulting duplicate records

Kinesis Data Analytics applications restart because of auto scaling or recovery from application or task manager crashes. When this happens, Kinesis Data Analytics saves a snapshot before shutdown and automatically reloads the latest snapshot and picks up where the work was left off. Kinesis Data Analytics also saves a checkpoint every minute so no data is lost, guaranteeing exactly-once processing.

However, when the Kinesis Data Analytics application shut down in the middle of sending results to Kinesis Data Streams, it doesn’t guarantee exactly-once data delivery. In fact, Flink only guarantees at least once delivery to Kinesis Data Analytics sink, meaning that Kinesis Data Analytics guarantees to send a record at least once, which leads to duplicate records sent when Kinesis Data Analytics is restarted.

How were duplicate records handled in the outgoing data stream?

Because duplicate records aren’t handled by Kinesis Data Analytics when sinks do not have exactly-once semantics, the downstream application must deal with the duplicate records. The first question you should ask is whether it’s necessary to deal with the duplicate records. Maybe it’s acceptable to tolerate duplicate records in your application? This, however, is not an option for NortonLifeLock, because no user wants to have their available usage taken twice within the same hour. So, logic had to be built in the application to handle duplicate usage records.

To deal with duplicate records, you can employ a strategy in which the application saves an update timestamp along with the user’s latest usage. When a record comes in, the application reads existing daily usage and compares the update timestamp against the current time. If the difference is less than a configured window (50 minutes if the aggregation window is 60 minutes), the application ignores the new record because it’s a duplicate. It’s acceptable for the application to potentially undercount vs. overcount user usage.

How were duplicate records handled in the outgoing S3 bucket?

Kinesis Data Analytics writes temporary files in Amazon S3 before finalizing and removing them. When Kinesis Data Analytics restarts, it attempts to write new S3 files, and potentially leaves behind temporary S3 files because of restart. Because Athena ignores all temporary S3 files, no further is action needed. If your BI tools take temporary S3 files into consideration, you have to configure the Amazon S3 lifecycle policy to clean up temporary S3 files after a certain time.

Conclusion

NortonLifelock has been successfully running a Kinesis Data Analytics application in production since May 2021. It provides several key benefits. VPN users can now keep track of their usage in near-real time. BI analysts can get timely insights that are used for targeted sales and marketing campaigns, and upselling features and services. VPN usage limits are enforced in near-real time, thereby optimizing the network resources. NortonLifelock is saving tens of thousands of dollars each month with this real-time streaming analytics solution. And this telemetry solution is able to keep up with petabytes of data flowing through their global VPN service, which is seeing double-digit monthly growth.

To learn more about Kinesis Data Analytics and getting started with serverless streaming solutions on AWS, please see Developer Guide for Studio, the easiest way to build Apache Flink applications in SQL, Python, Scala in a notebook interface.


About the Authors

Lei Gu has 25 years of software development experience and the architect for three key Norton products, Norton Secure Backup, VPN and Norton Family. He is passionate about cloud transformation and most recently spoke about moving from Cassandra to Amazon DynamoDB at AWS re:Invent 2019. Check out his Linkedin profile at https://www.linkedin.com/in/leigu/.

Madhu Nunna is a Sr. Solutions Architect at AWS, with over 20 years of experience in networks and cloud, with the last two years focused on AWS Cloud. He is passionate about Analytics and AI/ML. Outside of work, he enjoys hiking and reading books on philosophy, economics, history, astronomy and biology.

Build Your Own Game Day to Support Operational Resilience

Post Syndicated from Lewis Taylor original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/architecture/build-your-own-game-day-to-support-operational-resilience/

Operational resilience is your firm’s ability to provide continuous service through people, processes, and technology that are aware of and adaptive to constant change. Downtime of your mission-critical applications can not only damage your reputation, but can also make you liable to multi-million-dollar financial fines.

One way to test operational resilience is to simulate life-like system failures. An effective way to do this is by running events in your organization known as game days. Game days test systems, processes, and team responses and help evaluate your readiness to react and recover from operational issues. The AWS Well-Architected Framework recommends game days as a key strategy to develop and operate highly resilient systems because they focus not only on technology resilience issues but identify people and process gaps.

This blog post will explain how you can apply game day concepts to your workloads to help achieve a highly resilient workload.

Why does operational resilience matter from a regulatory perspective?

In March 2021, the Bank of England, Prudential Regulation Authority, and Financial Conduct Authority published their Building operational resilience: Feedback to CP19/32 and final rules policy. In this policy, operational resilience refers to a firm’s ability to prevent, adapt, and respond to and return to a steady system state when a disruption occurs. Further, firms are expected to learn and implement process improvements from prior disruptions.

This policy will not apply to everyone. However, across the board if you don’t establish operational resilience strategies, you are likely operating at an increased risk. If you have a service disruption, you may incur lost revenue and reputational damage.

What does it mean to be operationally resilient?

The final policy provides guidance on how firms should achieve operational resilience, which includes but is not limited to the following:

  • Identify and prioritize services based on the potential of intolerable harm to end consumers or risk to market integrity.
  • Define appropriate maximum impact tolerance of an important business service. This is reviewed annually using metrics to measure impact tolerance and answers questions like, “How long (in hours) can a service be offline before causing intolerable harm to end consumers?”
  • Document a complete view of all the aspects required to deliver each important service. This includes people, processes, technology, facilities, and information (resources). Firms should also test their ability to remain within the impact tolerances and provide assurance of resilience along with areas that need to be addressed.

What is a game day?

The AWS Well-Architected Framework defines a game day as follows:

“A game day simulates a failure or event to test systems, processes, and team responses. The purpose is to actually perform the actions the team would perform as if an exceptional event happened. These should be conducted regularly so that your team builds “muscle memory” on how to respond. Your game days should cover the areas of operations, security, reliability, performance, and cost.

In AWS, your game days can be carried out with replicas of your production environment using AWS CloudFormation. This enables you to test in a safe environment that resembles your production environment closely.”

Running game days that simulate system failure helps your organization evaluate and build operational resilience.

How can game days help build operational resilience?

Running a game day alone is not sufficient to ensure operational resilience. However, by navigating the following process to set up and perform a game day, you will establish a best practice-based approach for operating resilient systems.

Stage 1 – Identify key services

As part of setting up a game day event, you will catalog and identify business-critical services.

Game days are performed to test services where operational failure could result in significant financial, customer, and/or reputational impact to the firm. Game days can also evaluate other key factors, like the impact of a failure on the wider market where your firm operates.

For example, a firm may identify its digital banking mobile application from which their customers can initiate payments as one of its important business services.

Stage 2 – Map people, process, and technology supporting the business service

Game days are holistic events. To get a full picture of how the different aspects of your workload operate together, you’ll generate a detailed map of people and processes as they interact and operate the technical and non-technical components of the system. This mapping also helps your end consumers understand how you will provide them reliable support during a failure.

Stage 3 – Define and perform failure scenarios

Systems fail, and failures often happen when a system is operating at scale because various services working together can introduce complexity. To ensure operational resilience, you must understand how systems react and adapt to failures. To do this, you’ll identify and perform failure scenarios so you can understand how your systems will react and adapt and build “muscle memory” for actual events.

AWS builds to guard against outages and incidents, and accounts for them in the design of AWS services—so when disruptions do occur, their impact on customers and the continuity of services is as minimal as possible. At AWS, we employ compartmentalization throughout our infrastructure and services. We have multiple constructs that provide different levels of independent, redundant components.

Stage 4 – Observe and document people, process, and technology reactions

In running a failure scenario, you’ll observe how technological and non-technological components react to and recover from failure. This helps you identify failures and fix them as they cascade through impacted components across your workload. This also helps identify technical and operational challenges that might not otherwise be obvious.

Stage 5 – Conduct lessons learned exercises

Game days generate information on people, processes, and technology and also capture data on customer impact, incident response and remediation timelines, contributing factors, and corrective actions. By incorporating these data points into the system design process, you can implement continuous resilience for critical systems.

How to run your own game day in AWS

You may have heard of AWS GameDay events. This is an AWS organized event for our customers. In this team-based event, AWS provides temporary AWS accounts running fictional systems. Failures are injected into these systems and teams work together on completing challenges and improving the system architecture.

However, the method and tooling and principles we use to conduct AWS GameDays are agnostic and can be applied to your systems using the following services:

  • AWS Fault Injection Simulator is a fully managed service that runs fault injection experiments on AWS, which makes it easier to improve an application’s performance, observability, and resiliency.
  • Amazon CloudWatch is a monitoring and observability service that provides you with data and actionable insights to monitor your applications, respond to system-wide performance changes, optimize resource utilization, and get a unified view of operational health.
  • AWS X-Ray helps you analyze and debug production and distributed applications (such as those built using a microservices architecture). X-Ray helps you understand how your application and its underlying services are performing to identify and troubleshoot the root cause of performance issues and errors.

Please note you are not limited to the tools listed for simulating failure scenarios. For complete coverage of failure scenarios, we encourage you to explore additional tools and strategies.

Figure 1 shows a reference architecture example that demonstrates conducting a game day for an Open Banking implementation.

Game day reference architecture example

Figure 1. Game day reference architecture example

Game day operators use Fault Injection Simulator to catalog and perform failure scenarios to be included in your game day. For example, in our Open Banking use case in Figure 1, a failure scenario might be for the business API functions servicing Open Banking requests to abruptly stop working. You can also combine such simple failure scenarios into a more complex one with failures injected across multiple components of the architecture.

Game day participants use CloudWatch, X-Ray, and their own custom observability and monitoring tooling to identify failures as they cascade through systems.

As you go through the process of identifying, communicating, and fixing issues, you’ll also document impact of failures on end-users. From there, you’ll generate lessons learned to holistically improve your workload’s resilience.

Conclusion

In this blog, we discussed the significance of ensuring operational resilience. We demonstrated how to set up game days and how they can supplement your efforts to ensure operational resilience. We discussed how using AWS services such as Fault Injection Simulator, X-Ray, and CloudWatch can be used to facilitate and implement game day failure scenarios.

Ready to get started? For more information, check out our AWS Fault Injection Simulator User Guide.

Related information:

Building well-architected serverless applications: Building in resiliency – part 2

Post Syndicated from Julian Wood original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/compute/building-well-architected-serverless-applications-building-in-resiliency-part-2/

This series of blog posts uses the AWS Well-Architected Tool with the Serverless Lens to help customers build and operate applications using best practices. In each post, I address the serverless-specific questions identified by the Serverless Lens along with the recommended best practices. See the introduction post for a table of contents and explanation of the example application.

Reliability question REL2: How do you build resiliency into your serverless application?

This post continues part 1 of this reliability question. Previously, I cover managing failures using retries, exponential backoff, and jitter. I explain how DLQs can isolate failed messages. I show how to use state machines to orchestrate long running transactions rather than handling these in application code.

Required practice: Manage duplicate and unwanted events

Duplicate events can occur when a request is retried or multiple consumers process the same message from a queue or stream. A duplicate can also happen when a request is sent twice at different time intervals with the same parameters. Design your applications to process multiple identical requests to have the same effect as making a single request.

Idempotency refers to the capacity of an application or component to identify repeated events and prevent duplicated, inconsistent, or lost data. This means that receiving the same event multiple times does not change the result beyond the first time the event was received. An idempotent application can, for example, handle multiple identical refund operations. The first refund operation is processed. Any further refund requests to the same customer with the same payment reference should not be processes again.

When using AWS Lambda, you can make your function idempotent. The function’s code must properly validate input events and identify if the events were processed before. For more information, see “How do I make my Lambda function idempotent?

When processing streaming data, your application must anticipate and appropriately handle processing individual records multiple times. There are two primary reasons why records may be delivered more than once to your Amazon Kinesis Data Streams application: producer retries and consumer retries. For more information, see “Handling Duplicate Records”.

Generate unique attributes to manage duplicate events at the beginning of the transaction

Create, or use an existing unique identifier at the beginning of a transaction to ensure idempotency. These identifiers are also known as idempotency tokens. A number of Lambda triggers include a unique identifier as part of the event:

You can also create your own identifiers. These can be business-specific, such as transaction ID, payment ID, or booking ID. You can use an opaque random alphanumeric string, unique correlation identifiers, or the hash of the content.

A Lambda function, for example can use these identifiers to check whether the event has been previously processed.

Depending on the final destination, duplicate events might write to the same record with the same content instead of generating a duplicate entry. This may therefore not require additional safeguards.

Use an external system to store unique transaction attributes and verify for duplicates

Lambda functions can use Amazon DynamoDB to store and track transactions and idempotency tokens to determine if the transaction has been handled previously. DynamoDB Time to Live (TTL) allows you to define a per-item timestamp to determine when an item is no longer needed. This helps to limit the storage space used. Base the TTL on the event source. For example, the message retention period for SQS.

Using DynamoDB to store idempotent tokens

Using DynamoDB to store idempotent tokens

You can also use DynamoDB conditional writes to ensure a write operation only succeeds if an item attribute meets one of more expected conditions. For example, you can use this to fail a refund operation if a payment reference has already been refunded. This signals to the application that it is a duplicate transaction. The application can then catch this exception and return the same result to the customer as if the refund was processed successfully.

Third-party APIs can also support idempotency directly. For example, Stripe allows you to add an Idempotency-Key: <key> header to the request. Stripe saves the resulting status code and body of the first request made for any given idempotency key, regardless of whether it succeeded or failed. Subsequent requests with the same key return the same result.

Validate events using a pre-defined and agreed upon schema

Implicitly trusting data from clients, external sources, or machines could lead to malformed data being processed. Use a schema to validate your event conforms to what you are expecting. Process the event using the schema within your application code or at the event source when applicable. Events not adhering to your schema should be discarded.

For API Gateway, I cover validating incoming HTTP requests against a schema in “Implementing application workload security – part 1”.

Amazon EventBridge rules match event patterns. EventBridge provides schemas for all events that are generated by AWS services. You can create or upload custom schemas or infer schemas directly from events on an event bus. You can also generate code bindings for event schemas.

SNS supports message filtering. This allows a subscriber to receive a subset of the messages sent to the topic using a filter policy. For more information, see the documentation.

JSON Schema is a tool for validating the structure of JSON documents. There are a number of implementations available.

Best practice: Consider scaling patterns at burst rates

Load testing your serverless application allows you to monitor the performance of an application before it is deployed to production. Serverless applications can be simpler to load test, thanks to the automatic scaling built into many of the services. For more information, see “How to design Serverless Applications for massive scale”.

In addition to your baseline performance, consider evaluating how your workload handles initial burst rates. This ensures that your workload can sustain burst rates while scaling to meet possibly unexpected demand.

Perform load tests using a burst strategy with random intervals of idleness

Perform load tests using a burst of requests for a short period of time. Also introduce burst delays to allow your components to recover from unexpected load. This allows you to future-proof the workload for key events when you do not know peak traffic levels.

There are a number of AWS Marketplace and AWS Partner Network (APN) solutions available for performance testing, including Gatling FrontLine, BlazeMeter, and Apica.

In regulating inbound request rates – part 1, I cover running a performance test suite using Gatling, an open source tool.

Gatling performance results

Gatling performance results

Amazon does have a network stress testing policy that defines which high volume network tests are allowed. Tests that purposefully attempt to overwhelm the target and/or infrastructure are considered distributed denial of service (DDoS) tests and are prohibited. For more information, see “Amazon EC2 Testing Policy”.

Review service account limits with combined utilization across resources

AWS accounts have default quotas, also referred to as limits, for each AWS service. These are generally Region-specific. You can request increases for some limits while other limits cannot be increased. Service Quotas is an AWS service that helps you manage your limits for many AWS services. Along with looking up the values, you can also request a limit increase from the Service Quotas console.

Service Quotas dashboard

Service Quotas dashboard

As these limits are shared within an account, review the combined utilization across resources including the following:

  • Amazon API Gateway: number of requests per second across all APIs. (link)
  • AWS AppSync: throttle rate limits. (link)
  • AWS Lambda: function concurrency reservations and pool capacity to allow other functions to scale. (link)
  • Amazon CloudFront: requests per second per distribution. (link)
  • AWS IoT Core message broker: concurrent requests per second. (link)
  • Amazon EventBridge: API requests and target invocations limit. (link)
  • Amazon Cognito: API limits. (link)
  • Amazon DynamoDB: throughput, indexes, and request rates limits. (link)

Evaluate key metrics to understand how workloads recover from bursts

There are a number of key Amazon CloudWatch metrics to evaluate and alert on to understand whether your workload recovers from bursts.

  • AWS Lambda: Duration, Errors, Throttling, ConcurrentExecutions, UnreservedConcurrentExecutions. (link)
  • Amazon API Gateway: Latency, IntegrationLatency, 5xxError, 4xxError. (link)
  • Application Load Balancer: HTTPCode_ELB_5XX_Count, RejectedConnectionCount, HTTPCode_Target_5XX_Count, UnHealthyHostCount, LambdaInternalError, LambdaUserError. (link)
  • AWS AppSync: 5XX, Latency. (link)
  • Amazon SQS: ApproximateAgeOfOldestMessage. (link)
  • Amazon Kinesis Data Streams: ReadProvisionedThroughputExceeded, WriteProvisionedThroughputExceeded, GetRecords.IteratorAgeMilliseconds, PutRecord.Success, PutRecords.Success (if using Kinesis Producer Library), GetRecords.Success. (link)
  • Amazon SNS: NumberOfNotificationsFailed, NumberOfNotificationsFilteredOut-InvalidAttributes. (link)
  • Amazon Simple Email Service (SES): Rejects, Bounces, Complaints, Rendering Failures. (link)
  • AWS Step Functions: ExecutionThrottled, ExecutionsFailed, ExecutionsTimedOut. (link)
  • Amazon EventBridge: FailedInvocations, ThrottledRules. (link)
  • Amazon S3: 5xxErrors, TotalRequestLatency. (link)
  • Amazon DynamoDB: ReadThrottleEvents, WriteThrottleEvents, SystemErrors, ThrottledRequests, UserErrors. (link)

Conclusion

This post continues from part 1 and looks at managing duplicate and unwanted events with idempotency and an event schema. I cover how to consider scaling patterns at burst rates by managing account limits and show relevant metrics to evaluate

Build resiliency into your workloads. Ensure that applications can withstand partial and intermittent failures across components that may only surface in production. In the next post in the series, I cover the performance efficiency pillar from the Well-Architected Serverless Lens.

For more serverless learning resources, visit Serverless Land.

Building well-architected serverless applications: Building in resiliency – part 1

Post Syndicated from Julian Wood original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/compute/building-well-architected-serverless-applications-building-in-resiliency-part-1/

This series of blog posts uses the AWS Well-Architected Tool with the Serverless Lens to help customers build and operate applications using best practices. In each post, I address the serverless-specific questions identified by the Serverless Lens along with the recommended best practices. See the introduction post for a table of contents and explanation of the example application.

Reliability question REL2: How do you build resiliency into your serverless application?

Evaluate scaling mechanisms for serverless and non-serverless resources to meet customer demand. Build resiliency into your workload to make your serverless application resilient to withstand partial and intermittent failures across components that may only surface in production.

Required practice: Manage transaction, partial, and intermittent failures

Whenever one service or system calls another, there is a chance that failures can happen. Services or systems often don’t fail as a single unit, but rather suffer partial or transient failures. Applications should be designed to handle component failures as part of the architecture. The system should be designed to detect failure and, ideally, automatically heal itself.

Transaction failures can occur when a component is unavailable or under high load. Partial failures can occur when a percentage of requests succeeds, including during batch processing. Intermittent failures might occur when a request fails for a short period of time due to network or other transient issues.

AWS serverless services, including AWS Lambda, are fault-tolerant and designed to handle failures. If a service invokes a Lambda function and there is a service disruption, Lambda invokes the function in a different Availability Zone.

When you invoke a function directly, you determine the strategy for handling errors. You can retry, send the event to a destination or queue for debugging, or ignore the error. Clients such as the AWS Command Line Interface (CLI) and the AWS SDK retry on client timeouts, throttling errors (429), and other errors that are not caused by a bad request.

When you invoke a function indirectly, you must be aware of the retry behavior of the invoker and any service that the request encounters along the way. For more information, see “Error handling and automatic retries in AWS Lambda”. You can configure Maximum Retry Attempts and Maximum Event Age for asynchronous invocations.

When reading from Amazon Kinesis Data Streams and Amazon DynamoDB Streams, Lambda retries the entire batch of items. Retries continue until the records expire or exceed the maximum age that you configure on the event source mapping. You can also configure the event source mapping to split a failed batch into two batches. Retrying with smaller batches isolates bad records and works around timeout issues.

Partial failures can occur in non-atomic operations. PutRecords for Kinesis and BatchWriteItem for DynamoDB return a successful response if at least one record is ingested successfully. Always inspect the response when using such operations and programmatically deal with partial failures.

Use exponential backoff with jitter

The simplest technique for dealing with failures in a networked environment is to retry calls until they succeed. This technique increases the reliability of the application and reduces operational costs for the developer.

However, it is not always safe to retry. A retry can further increase the load on the system being called if the system is already failing due to an overload. To avoid this problem, use backoff. Instead of retrying immediately and aggressively, the client waits some amount of time between tries. The most common pattern is an exponential backoff, which uses exponentially longer wait times between retries. This is typically capped to a maximum delay and number of retries.

If all backoff retries are still happening at the same time, this can still overload a system or cause contention. To avoid this problem, use jitter. Jitter adds some amount of randomness to the backoff to spread the retries around in time. This can help prevent large bursts by spreading out the rate when clients connect. For more information see the Amazon Builders’ Library article “Timeouts, retries, and backoff with jitter” and AWS Architecture blog post “Exponential Backoff And Jitter”.

Exponential backoff and jitter

Exponential backoff and jitter

When your application responds to callers in fail-fast scenarios and when performance is degraded, inform the caller via headers or metadata when they can retry.

Each AWS SDK implements automatic retry logic including exponential backoff. For downstream calls, you can adjust AWS and third-party SDK retries, backoffs, TCP, and HTTP timeouts. This helps you decide when to stop retrying. For more information, see the documentation and troubleshooting steps for Lambda and the AWS SDK.

Use a dead-letter queue mechanism to retain, investigate and retry failed transactions

There are a number of ways to handle message failures including destinations and dead-letter queues.

You can configure Lambda to send records of asynchronous invocations to another destination service. These include Amazon Simple Queue Service (SQS), Amazon Simple Notification Service (SNS), Lambda, and Amazon EventBridge. You can configure separate destinations for events that fail processing and events that are successfully processed. The invocation record contains details about the event, the response, and the reason that the record was sent.

The following example shows a function that sends a record of a successful invocation to an EventBridge event bus. When an event fails all processing attempts, Lambda sends an invocation record to an SQS queue. It includes the function’s response in the invocation record.

AWS Lambda destinations for asynchronous invocation

AWS Lambda destinations for asynchronous invocation

SNS, SQS, Lambda, and EventBridge support dead-letter queues (DLQs). DLQs make your applications more resilient and durable by storing messages or events that can’t be processed correctly into a dedicated SQS queue. This helps you debug your application by isolating the problematic messages to determine why their processing failed. One you have resolved the issue, re-process the failed message. For more information, see “When should I use a dead-letter queue?” There is an example serverless application to redrive the messages from an SQS DLQ back to its source SQS queue.

For Lambda, DLQs provide an alternative to a failure destination. Lambda destinations is preferable for asynchronous invocations.

Good practice: Orchestrate long-running transactions

Long-running transactions can be processed by one or multiple components. Consider implementing the saga pattern using state machines for these types of transactions.

The saga pattern coordinates transactions between multiple microservices as part of a state machine. Each service that performs a transaction publishes an event to trigger the next transaction in the saga. This continues until the transaction chain is complete. If a transaction fails, saga orchestrates a series of compensating transactions that undo the changes that were made by the preceding transactions.

This is preferable to handling complex or long-running transactions within application code. State machines prevent cascading failures and avoid tightly coupling components with orchestrating logic and business logic.

Use a state machine to visualize distributed transactions, and to separate business logic from orchestration logic.

AWS Step Functions lets you coordinate multiple AWS services into serverless workflows via state machines. Within Step Functions, you can set separate retries, backoff rates, max attempts, intervals, and timeouts. These are set for every step of your state machine using a declarative language.

In the serverless airline example used in this series, Step Functions is used to orchestrate the Booking microservice. The ProcessBooking state machine handles all the necessary steps to create bookings, including payment.

Booking service Step Functions state machine

Booking service Step Functions state machine

The state machine uses a combination of service integrations using DynamoDB, SQS, and Lambda functions to coordinate transactions and handle failures.

For example, the Reserve Booking task invokes a Lambda function. The task has retry and error handling configured as part of the task definition.

"Reserve Booking": {
	"Type": "Task",
	"Resource": "${ReserveBooking.Arn}",
	"TimeoutSeconds": 5,
	"Retry": [
		{
			"ErrorEquals": [
				"BookingReservationException"
			],
			"IntervalSeconds": 1,
			"BackoffRate": 2,
			"MaxAttempts": 2
		}
	],
	"Catch": [
		{
			"ErrorEquals": [
				"States.ALL"
			],
			"ResultPath": "$.bookingError",
			"Next": "Cancel Booking"
		}
	],
	"ResultPath": "$.bookingId",
	"Next": "Collect Payment"
},

Step Functions supports direct service integrations, including DynamoDB. The Reserve Flight task directly updates the flightTable without requiring a Lambda function.

"Reserve Flight": {
	"Type": "Task",
	"Resource": "arn:aws:states:::dynamodb:updateItem",
	"Parameters": {
		"TableName.$": "$.flightTable",
		"Key": {
			"id": {
				"S.$": "$.outboundFlightId"
			}
		},
		"UpdateExpression": "SET seatCapacity = seatCapacity - :dec",
		"ExpressionAttributeValues": {
			":dec": {
				"N": "1"
			},
			":noSeat": {
				"N": "0"
			}
		},
		"ConditionExpression": "seatCapacity > :noSeat"
	},

By default, when a state reports an error, Step Functions causes the execution to fail entirely.

Utilize dead-letter queues in response to failed state machine executions

Any state within the Step Functions workflow can encounter runtime errors. These include state machine definition issues, task failures such as Lambda function exceptions, or transient issues such as network connectivity issues. For more information, see “Error handling in Step Functions”.

Use the Step Functions service integration with SQS to send failed transactions to a DLQ as the final step. This adds a higher level of durability within your state machines.

For example, the airline Notify Failed Booking final task catches failed states from four previous steps. It sends the results to the Booking DLQ.

Booking service Step Functions DLQ

Booking service Step Functions DLQ

The message includes the output of the previous failed states for further troubleshooting.

"Booking DLQ": {
	"Type": "Task",
	"Resource": "arn:aws:states:::sqs:sendMessage",
	"Parameters": {
		"QueueUrl": "${BookingsDLQ}",
		"MessageBody.$": "$"
	},
	"ResultPath": "$.deadLetterQueue",
	"Next": "Booking Failed"
},

The Step Functions documentation has more information on calling SQS.

Conclusion

Build resiliency into your workloads. This makes sure that your application can withstand partial and intermittent failures across components that may only surface in production.

In this post, I cover managing failures using retries, exponential backoff, and jitter. I explain how DLQs can isolate failed messages. I show how to use state machines to orchestrate long running transactions rather than handling these in application code.

This well-architected question continues in part 2 where I look at managing duplicate and unwanted events with idempotency and an event schema. I cover how to consider scaling patterns at burst rates by managing account limits and show relevant metrics to evaluate.

For more serverless learning resources, visit Serverless Land.

Implementing Multi-Region Disaster Recovery Using Event-Driven Architecture

Post Syndicated from Vaibhav Shah original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/architecture/implementing-multi-region-disaster-recovery-using-event-driven-architecture/

In this blog post, we share a reference architecture that uses a multi-Region active/passive strategy to implement a hot standby strategy for disaster recovery (DR).

We highlight the benefits of performing DR failover using event-driven, serverless architecture, which provides high reliability, one of the pillars of AWS Well Architected Framework.

With the multi-Region active/passive strategy, your workloads operate in primary and secondary Regions with full capacity. The main traffic flows through the primary and the secondary Region acts as a recovery Region in case of a disaster event. This makes your infrastructure more resilient and highly available and allows business continuity with minimal impact on production workloads. This blog post aligns with the Disaster Recovery Series that explains various DR strategies that you can implement based on your goals for recovery time objectives (RTO), recovery point objectives (RPO), and cost.

DR Strategies

Figure 1. DR strategies

Keeping RTO and RPO low

DR allows you to recover from various unforeseen failures that may make a Region unusable, including human errors causing misconfiguration, technical failures, natural disasters, etc. DR also mitigates the impact of disaster events and improves resiliency, which keeps Service Level Agreements high with minimum impact on business continuity.

As shown in Figure 2, the multi-Region active-passive strategy switches request traffic from primary to secondary Region via DNS records via Amazon Route 53 routing policies. This keeps RTO and RPO low.

DR implementation architecture on multi-Region active-passive workloads

Figure 2. DR implementation architecture on multi-Region active/passive workloads

Deploying your multi-Region workload with AWS CodePipeline

In the multi-Region active/passive strategy, your workload handles full capacity in primary and secondary AWS Regions using AWS CloudFormation. By using AWS CodePipeline, one deploy stage within the pipeline will deploy the stack to the primary Region (Figure 3). After that, the same stack is copied to the secondary Region.

The workloads in the primary and secondary Regions will be treated as two different environments. However, they will run the same version of your application for consistency and availability in event of a failure.

Deploying new versions to Lambda using CodePipeline and CloudFormation in two Regions

Figure 3. Deploying new versions to Lambda using CodePipeline and CloudFormation in two Regions

Fail over with event-driven serverless architecture

The event-driven serverless architecture performs failover by updating the weights of the Route 53 record. This shifts the traffic flow from the primary to the secondary Region. This operation specifies the source Region from where the failover is happening to the destination Region.

For a given application, there will be two Route 53 records with the same name. The two records will point at two different endpoints for the application deployed in two different Regions.

The record will use a weighted policy with the weight as 100 for the record pointing at the endpoint in the primary Region. This means that all the request traffic will be served by the endpoint in the primary Region. Similarly, the second record will have weight as 0 and will be pointing to the endpoint in the secondary Region. This means none of the request traffic will reach that endpoint. This process can be repeated for multiple API endpoints. The information about the applications, like DNS records, endpoints, hosted zone IDs, Regions, and weights will all be stored in a DynamoDB table.

Then the Amazon API Gateway calls an AWS Lambda function that scans each item in an Amazon DynamoDB table. The API Gateway also updates the weighted policy of the Route 53 record and the DynamoDB table weight attribute.

The API Gateway, Lambda, function and global DynamoDB table will all be deployed in the primary and secondary Regions.

Ensuring workload availability after a disaster

In the event of disaster, the data in the affected Region must be available in the recovery Region. In this section, we talk about fail over of databases like DynamoDB tables and Amazon Relational Database Service (Amazon RDS) databases.

Global DynamoDB tables

If you have two tables coexisting in two different Regions, any changes made to the table in the primary Region will be replicated to the secondary Region and vice versa. Once failover occurs, the request traffic moves through the recovery Region and connects to its databases, meaning your data and workloads are still working and available.

Amazon RDS database

Amazon RDS does not offer the same failover features that DynamoDB tables do. However, Amazon Aurora does offer a replication feature to read replicas in other Regions.

To use this feature, you’ll create an RDS database in the primary Region and enable backup replication in the configuration. In case of a DR event, you can choose to restore the replicated backup on the Amazon RDS instance in the destination Region.

Approach

Initiating DR

The DR process can be initiated manually or automatically based on certain metrics like status checks, error rates, etc. If the established thresholds are reached for these metrics, it signifies the workloads in the primary Region are failing.

You can initiate the DR process automatically by invoking an API call that can initiate backend automation. This allows you to measure how resilient and reliable your workload is and how quickly you can switch traffic to another Region if a real disaster happens.

Failover

The failover process is initiated by the API Gateway invoking a Lambda function, as shown on the left side of Figure 2. The Lambda function then performs failover by updating the weights of the Route 53 and DynamoDB table records. Similar steps can be performed for failing over database endpoints.

Once failover is complete, you’ll want to monitor traffic using Amazon CloudWatch. The List the available CloudWatch metrics for your instances user guide provides common metrics for you to monitor for Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud (Amazon EC2). The Amazon ECS CloudWatch metrics user guide provides common metrics to monitor for Amazon Elastic Container Service (Amazon ECS).

Failback

Once failover is successful and you’ve proven that traffic is being successfully routed to the new Region, you’ll failback to the primary Region. Similar metrics can be monitored in the secondary Region like you did in the Failover section.

Testing and results

Regularly test your DR process and evaluate the results and metrics. Based on the success and misses, you can make nearly continuous improvements in the DR process.

The critical applications within your organization will likely change over time, so it is important to evaluate which applications are mission critical and require an active/passive DR strategy. If an application is no longer mission critical, another DR strategy may be more appropriate.

Conclusion

The multi-Region active/passive strategy is one way to implement DR for applications hosted on AWS. It can fail over several applications in a short period of time by using serverless capabilities.

By using this strategy, your applications will be highly available and resilient to issues impacting Regional failures. It provides high business continuity, limits losses due to revenue reduction, and your customers will see minimum impact on performance efficiency, which is one of the pillars of AWS Well Architected Framework. By using this strategy, you can significantly reduce DR time by trading lower RTO and RPO for higher costs for critical applications.

Related information

Building well-architected serverless applications: Regulating inbound request rates – part 2

Post Syndicated from Julian Wood original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/compute/building-well-architected-serverless-applications-regulating-inbound-request-rates-part-2/

This series of blog posts uses the AWS Well-Architected Tool with the Serverless Lens to help customers build and operate applications using best practices. In each post, I address the serverless-specific questions identified by the Serverless Lens along with the recommended best practices. See the introduction post for a table of contents and explanation of the example application.

Reliability question REL1: How do you regulate inbound request rates?

This post continues part 1 of this security question. Previously, I cover controlling inbound request rates using throttling. I go through how to use throttling to control steady-rate and burst rate requests. I show some solutions for performance testing to identify the request rates that your workload can sustain before impacting performance.

Good practice: Use, analyze, and enforce API quotas

API quotas limit the maximum number of requests a given API key can submit within a specified time interval. Metering API consumers provides a better understanding of how different consumers use your workload at sustained and burst rates at any point in time. With this information, you can determine fine-grained rate limiting for multiple quota limits. These can be done according to a group of consumer needs, and can adjust their limits on a regular basis.

Segregate API consumers steady-rate requests and their quota into multiple buckets or tiers

Amazon API Gateway usage plans allow your API consumer to access selected APIs at agreed-upon request rates and quotas. These help your consumers meet their business requirements and budget constraints. Create and attach API keys to usage plans to control access to certain API stages. I show how to create usage plans and how to associate them with API keys in “Building well-architected serverless applications: Controlling serverless API access – part 2”.

API key associated with usage plan

API key associated with usage plan

You can extract utilization data from usage plans to analyze API usage on a per-API key basis. In the example, I show how to use usage plans to see how many requests are made.

View API key usage

View API key usage

This allows you to generate billing documents and determine whether your customers need higher or lower limits. Have a mechanism to allow customers to request higher limits preemptively. When customers anticipate greater API usage, they can take action proactively.

API Gateway Lambda authorizers can dynamically associate API keys to a given request. This can be used where you do not control API consumers, or want to associate API keys based on your own criteria. For more information, see the documentation.

You can also visualize usage plans with Amazon QuickSight using enriched API Gateway access logs.

Visualize usage plans with Amazon QuickSight

Visualize usage plans with Amazon QuickSight

Define whether your API consumers are end users or machines

Understanding your API consumers helps you manage how they connect to your API. This helps you define a request access pattern strategy, which can distinguish between end users or machines.

Machine consumers make automated connections to your API, which may require a different access pattern to end users. You may decide to prioritize end user consumers to provide a better experience. Machine consumers may be able to handle request throttling automatically.

Best practice: Use mechanisms to protect non-scalable resources

Limit component throughput by enforcing how many transactions it can accept

AWS Lambda functions can scale faster than traditional resources, such as relational databases and cache systems. Protect your non-scalable resources by ensuring that components that scale quickly do not exceed the throughput of downstream systems. This can prevent system performance degrading. There are a number of ways to achieve this, either directly or via buffer mechanisms such as queues and streams.

For relational databases such as Amazon RDS, you can limit the number of connections per user, in addition to the global maximum number of connections. With Amazon RDS Proxy, your applications can pool and share database connections to improve their ability to scale.

Amazon RDS Proxy

Amazon RDS Proxy

For additional options for using RDS with Lambda, see the AWS Serverless Hero blog post “How To: Manage RDS Connections from AWS Lambda Serverless Functions”.

Cache results and only connect to, and fetch data from databases when needed. This reduces the load on the downstream database. Adjust the maximum number of connections for caching systems. Include a caching expiration mechanism to prevent serving stale records. For more information on caching implementation patterns and considerations, see “Caching Best Practices”.

Lambda provides managed scaling. When a function is first invoked, the Lambda service creates an instance of the function to process the event. This is called a cold start. After completion, the function remains available for a period of time to process subsequent events. These are called warm starts. If other events arrive while the function is busy, Lambda creates more instances of the function to handle these requests concurrently as cold starts. The following example shows 10 events processed in six concurrent requests.

Lambda concurrency

Lambda concurrency

You can control the number of concurrent function invocations to both reserve and limit the maximum concurrency your function can achieve. You can configure reserved concurrency to set the maximum number of concurrent instances for the function. This can protect downstream resources such as a database by ensuring Lambda can only scale up to the number of connections the database can support.

For example, you may have a traditional database or external API that can only support a maximum of 50 concurrent connections. You can set the maximum number of concurrent Lambda functions using the function concurrency settings. Setting the value to 50 ensures that the traditional database or external API is not overwhelmed.

Edit Lambda concurrency

Edit Lambda concurrency

You can also set the Lambda function concurrency to 0, which disables the Lambda function in the event of anomalies.

Another solution to protect downstream resources is to use an intermediate buffer. A buffer can persistently store messages in a stream or queue until a receiver processes them. This helps you control how fast messages are processed, which can protect the load on downstream resources.

Amazon Kinesis Data Streams allows you to collect and process large streams of data records in real time, and can act as a buffer. Streams consist of a set of shards that contain a sequence of data records. When using Lambda to process records, it processes one batch of records at a time from each shard.

Kinesis Data Streams control concurrency at the shard level, meaning that a single shard has a single concurrent invocation. This can reduce downstream calls to non-scalable resources such as a traditional database. Kinesis Data Streams also support batch windows up to 5 minutes and batch record sizes. These can also be used to control how frequent invocations can occur.

To learn how to manage scaling with Kinesis, see the documentation. To learn more how Lambda works with Kinesis, read the blog series “Building serverless applications with streaming data”.

Lambda and Kinesis shards

Lambda and Kinesis shards

Amazon Simple Queue Service (SQS) is a fully managed serverless message queuing service that enables you to decouple and scale microservices. You can offload tasks from one component of your application by sending them to a queue and processing them asynchronously.

SQS can act as a buffer, using a Lambda function to process the messages. Lambda polls the queue and invokes your Lambda function synchronously with an event that contains queue messages. Lambda reads messages in batches and invokes your function once for each batch. When your function successfully processes a batch, Lambda deletes its messages from the queue.

You can protect downstream resources using the Lambda concurrency controls. This limits the number of concurrent Lambda functions that pull messages off the queue. The messages persist in the queue until Lambda can process them. For more information see, “Using AWS Lambda with Amazon SQS

Lambda and SQS

Lambda and SQS

Conclusion

Regulating inbound requests helps you adapt different scaling mechanisms based on customer demand. You can achieve better throughput for your workloads and make them more reliable by controlling requests to a rate that your workload can support.

In this post, I cover using, analyzing, and enforcing API quotas using usage plans and API keys. I show mechanisms to protect non-scalable resources such as using RDS Proxy to protect downstream databases. I show how to control the number of Lambda invocations using concurrency controls to protect downstream resources. I explain how you can use streams and queues as an intermediate buffer to store messages persistently until a receiver processes them.

In the next post in the series, I cover the second reliability question from the Well-Architected Serverless Lens, building resiliency into serverless applications.

For more serverless learning resources, visit Serverless Land.

Choosing a Well-Architected CI/CD approach: Open Source on AWS

Post Syndicated from Mikhail Vasilyev original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/devops/choosing-a-well-architected-ci-cd-approach-open-source-on-aws/

Introduction

When building a CI/CD platform, it is important to make an informed decision regarding every underlying tool. This post explores evaluating the criteria for selecting each tool focusing on a balance between meeting functional and non-functional requirements, and maximizing value.

Your first decision: source code management.

Source code is potentially your most valuable asset, and so we start by choosing a source code management tool. These tools normally have high non-functional requirements in order to protect your assets and to ensure they are available to the organization when needed. The requirements usually include demand for high durability, high availability (HA), consistently high throughput, and strong security with role-based access controls.

At the same time, source code management tools normally have many specific functional requirements as well. For example, the ability to provide collaborative code review in the UI, flexible and tunable merge policies including both automated and manual gates (code checks), and out-of-box UI-level integrations with numerous other tools. These kinds of integrations can include enabling monitoring, CI, chats, and agile project management.

Many teams also treat source code management tools as their portal into other CI/CD tools. They make them shareable between teams, and might prefer to stay within one single context and user interface throughout the entire DevOps cycle. Many source code management tools are actually a stack of services that support multiple steps of your CI/CD workflows from within a single UI. This makes them an excellent starting point for building your CI/CD platforms.

The first decision your need to make is whether to go with an open source solution for managing code or with AWS-managed solutions, such as AWS CodeCommit. Open source solutions include (but are not limited to) the following: Gerrit, Gitlab, Gogs, and Phabricator.

You decision will be influenced by the amount of benefit your team can gain from the flexibility provided through open source, and how well your team can support deploying and managing these solutions. You will also need to consider the infrastructure and management overhead cost.

Engineering teams that have the capacity to develop their own plugins for their CI/CD platforms, or whom even contribute directly to open source projects, will often prefer open source solutions for the flexibility they provide. This will be especially true if they are fluent in designing and supporting their own cloud infrastructure. If the team gets more value by trading the flexibility of open source for not having to worry about managing infrastructure (especially if High Availability, Scalability, Durability, and Security are more critical) an AWS-managed solution would be a better choice.

Source Code Management Solution

When the choice is made in favor of an open-source code management solution (such as Gitlab), the next decision will be how to architect the deployment. Will the team deploy to a single instance, or design for high availability, durability, and scalability? Teams that want to design Gitlab for HA can use the following guide to proceed: Installing GitLab on Amazon Web Services (AWS)

By adopting AWS services (such as Amazon RDS, Amazon ElastiCache for Redis, and Autoscaling Groups), you can lower the management burden of supporting the underlying infrastructure in this self-managed HA scenario.

High level overview of self-managed HA Gitlab deployment

Your second decision: Continuous Integration engine

Selecting your CI engine, you might be able to benefit from additional features of previously selected solutions. Gitlab provides both source control services, as well as built-in CI tools, called Gitlab CI. Gitlab Runners are responsible for running CI jobs, and the actual jobs are described as YML files stored in Gitlab’s git repository along with product code. For security and performance reasons, GitLab Runners should be on resources separate from your GitLab instance.

You could manage those resources or you could use one of the AWS services that can support deploying and managing Runners. The use of an on-demand service removes the expense of implementing and managing a capability that is undifferentiated heavy lifting for you. This provides cost optimization and enables operational excellence. You pay for what you use and the service team manages the underlying service.

Continuous Integration engine Solution

In an architecture example (below), Gitlab Runners are deployed in containers running on Amazon EKS. The team has less infrastructure to manage, can start focusing on development faster by not having to implement the capability, and can provision resources in an optimal way for their on-demand needs.

To further optimize costs, you can use EC2 Spot Instances for your EKS nodes. CI jobs are normally compute intensive and limited in run time. The runner jobs can easily be restarted on a different resource with little impact. This makes them tolerant of failure and the use of EC2 Spot instances very appealing. Amazon EKS and Spot Instances are supported out-of-box in Gitlab. As a result there is no integration to develop, only configuration is required.

To support infrastructure as code best practices, Runners are deployed with Helm and are stored and versioned as Helm charts. All of the infrastructure as code information used to implement the CI/CD platform itself is stored in templates such as Terraform.

High level overview of Infrastructure as Code on Gitlab and Gitlab CI

High level overview of Infrastructure as Code on Gitlab and Gitlab CI

Your third decision: Container Registry

You will be unable to deploy Runners if the container images are not available. As a result, the primary non-functional requirements for your production container registry are likely to include high availability, durability, transparent scalability, and security. At the same time, your functional requirements for a container registry might be lower. It might be sufficient to have a simple UI, and simple APIs supporting basic flows. Customers looking for a managed solution can use Amazon ECR, which is OCI compliant and supports Helm Charts.

Container Registry Solution

For this set of requirements, the flexibility and feature velocity of open source tools does not provide an advantage. Self-supporting high availability and strengthened security could be costly in implementation time and long-term management. Based on [Blog post 1 Diagram 1], an AWS-managed solution provides cost advantages and has no management overhead. In this case, an AWS-managed solution is a better choice for your container registry than an open-source solution hosted on AWS. In this example, Amazon ECR is selected. Customers who prefer to go with open-source container registries might consider solutions like Harbor.

High level overview of Gitlab CI with Amazon ECR

High level overview of Gitlab CI with Amazon ECR

Additional Considerations

Now that the main services for the CI/CD platform are selected, we will take a high level look at additional important considerations. You need to make sure you have observability into both infrastructure and applications, that backup tools and policies are in place, and that security needs are addressed.

There are many mechanisms to strengthen security including the use of security groups. Use IAM for granular permission control. Robust policies can limit the exposure of your resources and control the flow of traffic. Implement policies to prevent your assets leaving your CI environment inappropriately. To protect sensitive data, such as worker secrets, encrypt these assets while in transit and at rest. Select a key management solution to reduce your operational burden and to support these activities such as AWS Key Management Service (AWS KMS). To deliver secure and compliant application changes rapidly while running operations consistently with automation, implement DevSecOps.

Amazon S3 is durable, secure, and highly available by design making it the preferred choice to store EBS-level backups by many customers. Amazon S3 satisfies the non-functional requirements for a backup store. It also supports versioning and tiered storage classes, making it a cost-effective as well.

Your observability requirements may emphasize versatility and flexibility for application-level monitoring. Using Amazon CloudWatch to monitor your infrastructure and then extending your capabilities through an open-source solutions such as Prometheus may be advantageous. You can get many of the benefits of both open-source Prometheus and AWS services with Amazon Managed Service for Prometheus (AMP). For interactive visualization of metrics, many customers choose solutions such as open-source Grafana, available as an AWS service Amazon Managed Service for Grafana (AMG).

CI/CD Platform with Gitlab and AWS

CI/CD Platform with Gitlab and AWS

Conclusion

We have covered how making informed decisions can maximize value and synergy between open-source solutions on AWS, such as Gitlab, and AWS-managed services, such as Amazon EKS and Amazon ECR. You can find the right balance of open-source tools and AWS services that will meet your functional and non-functional requirements, and help maximizing the value you get from those resources.

Pete Goldberg, Director of Partnerships at GitLab: “When aligning your development process to AWS Well Architected Framework, GitLab allows customers to build and automate processes to achieve Operational Excellence. As a single tool designed to facilitate collaboration across the organization, GitLab simplifies the process to follow the Fully Separated Operating Model where Engineering and Operations come together via automated processes that remove the historical barriers between the groups. This gives organizations the ability to efficiently and rapidly deploy new features and applications that drive the business while providing the risk mitigation and compliance they require. By allowing operations teams to define infrastructure as code in the same tool that the engineering teams are storing application code, and allowing your automation bring those together for your CI/CD workflows companies can move faster while having compliance and controls built-in, providing the entire organization greater transparency. With GitLab’s integrations with different AWS compute options (EC2, Lambda, Fargate, ECS or EKS), customers can choose the best type of compute for the job without sacrificing the controls required to maintain Operational Excellence.”

 

Author bio

Mikhail is a Solutions Architect for RUS-CIS. Mikhail supports customers on their cloud journeys with Well-architected best practices and adoption of DevOps techniques on AWS. Mikhail is a fan of ChatOps, Open Source on AWS and Operational Excellence design principles.

Building well-architected serverless applications: Implementing application workload security – part 1

Post Syndicated from Julian Wood original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/compute/building-well-architected-serverless-applications-implementing-application-workload-security-part-1/

This series of blog posts uses the AWS Well-Architected Tool with the Serverless Lens to help customers build and operate applications using best practices. In each post, I address the serverless-specific questions identified by the Serverless Lens along with the recommended best practices. See the introduction post for a table of contents and explanation of the example application.

Security question SEC3: How do you implement application security in your workload?

Review and automate security practices at the application code level, and enforce security code review as part of development workflow. By implementing security at the application code level, you can protect against emerging security threats and reduce the attack surface from malicious code, including third-party dependencies.

Required practice: Review security awareness documents frequently

Stay up to date with both AWS and industry security best practices to understand and evolve protection of your workloads. Having a clear understanding of common threats helps you to mitigate them when developing your workloads.

The AWS Security Blog provides security-specific AWS content. The Open Web Application Security Project (OWASP) Top 10 is a guide for security practitioners to understand the most common application attacks and risks. The OWASP Top 10 Serverless Interpretation provides information specific to serverless applications.

Review and subscribe to vulnerability and security bulletins

Regularly review news feeds from multiple sources that are relevant to the technologies used in your workload. Subscribe to notification services to be informed of critical threats in near-real time.

The Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) program identifies, defines, and catalogs publicly disclosed cybersecurity vulnerabilities. You can search the CVE list directly, for example “Python”.

CVE Python search

CVE Python search

The US National Vulnerability Database (NVD) allows you to search by vulnerability type, severity, and impact. You can also perform advanced searching by vendor name, product name, and version numbers. GitHub also integrates with CVE, which allows for advanced searching within the CVEproject/cvelist repository.

AWS Security Bulletins are a notification system for security and privacy events related to AWS services. Subscribe to the security bulletin RSS feed to keep up to date with AWS security announcements.

The US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) provides alerts about current security issues, vulnerabilities, and exploits. You can receive email alerts or subscribe to the RSS feed.

AWS Partner Network (APN) member Palo Alto Networks provides the “Serverless architectures Security Top 10” list. This is a security awareness and education guide to use while designing, developing, and testing serverless applications to help minimize security risks.

Good practice: Automatically review a workload’s code dependencies/libraries

Regularly reviewing application and code dependencies is a good industry security practice. This helps detect and prevent non-certified application code, and ensure that third-party application dependencies operate as intended.

Implement security mechanisms to verify application code and dependencies before using them

Combine automated and manual security code reviews to examine application code and its dependencies to ensure they operate as intended. Automated tools can help identify overly complex application code, and common security vulnerability exposures that are already cataloged.

Manual security code reviews, in addition to automated tools, help ensure that application code works as intended. Manual reviews can include business contextual information and integrations that automated tools may not capture.

Before adding any code dependencies to your workload, take time to review and certify each dependency to ensure that you are adding secure code. Use third-party services to review your code dependencies on every commit automatically.

OWASP has a code review guide and dependency check tool that attempt to detect publicly disclosed vulnerabilities within a project’s dependencies. The tool has a command line interface, a Maven plugin, an Ant task, and a Jenkins plugin.

GitHub has a number of security features for hosted repositories to inspect and manage code dependencies.

The dependency graph allows you to explore the packages that your repository depends on. Dependabot alerts show information about dependencies that are known to contain security vulnerabilities. You can choose whether to have pull requests generated automatically to update these dependencies. Code scanning alerts automatically scan code files to detect security vulnerabilities and coding errors.

You can enable these features by navigating to the Settings tab, and selecting Security & analysis.

GitHub configure security and analysis features

GitHub configure security and analysis features

Once Dependabot analyzes the repository, you can view the dependencies graph from the Insights tab. In the serverless airline example used in this series, you can view the Loyalty service package.json dependencies.

Serverless airline loyalty dependencies

Serverless airline loyalty dependencies

Dependabot alerts for security vulnerabilities are visible in the Security tab. You can review alerts and see information about how to resolve them.

Dependabot alert

Dependabot alert

Once Dependabot alerts are enabled for a repository, you can also view the alerts when pushing code to the repository from the terminal.

Dependabot terminal alert

Dependabot terminal alert

If you enable security updates, Dependabot can automatically create pull requests to update dependencies.

Dependabot pull requests

Dependabot pull requests

AWS Partner Network (APN) member Snyk has an integration with AWS Lambda to manage the security of your function code. Snyk determines what code and dependencies are currently deployed for Node.js, Ruby, and Java projects. It tests dependencies against their vulnerability database.

If you build your functions using container images, you can use Amazon Elastic Container Registry’s (ECR) image scanning feature. You can manually scan your images, or scan them on each push to your repository.

Elastic Container Registry image scanning example results

Elastic Container Registry image scanning example results

Best practice: Validate inbound events

Sanitize inbound events and validate them against a predefined schema. This helps prevent errors and increases your workload’s security posture by catching malformed events or events intentionally crafted to be malicious. The OWASP Input validation cheat sheet includes guidance for providing input validation security functionality in your applications.

Validate incoming HTTP requests against a schema

Implicitly trusting data from clients could lead to malformed data being processed. Use data type validators or web application frameworks to ensure data correctness. These should include regular expressions, value range, data structure, and data normalization.

You can configure Amazon API Gateway to perform basic validation of an API request before proceeding with the integration request to add another layer of security. This ensures that the HTTP request matches the desired format. Any HTTP request that does not pass validation is rejected, returning a 400 error response to the caller.

The Serverless Security Workshop has a module on API Gateway input validation based on the fictional Wild Rydes unicorn raid hailing service. The example shows a REST API endpoint where partner companies of Wild Rydes can submit unicorn customizations, such as branded capes, to advertise their company. The API endpoint should ensure that the request body follows specific patterns. These include checking the ImageURL is a valid URL, and the ID for Cape is a numeric value.

In API Gateway, a model defines the data structure of a payload, using the JSON schema draft 4. The model ensures that you receive the parameters in the format you expect. You can check them against regular expressions. The CustomizationPost model specifies that the ImageURL and Cape schemas should contain the following valid patterns:

    "imageUrl": {
      "type": "string",
      "title": "The Imageurl Schema",
      "pattern": "^https?:\/\/[[email protected]:%_+.~#?&//=]+$"
    },
    "sock": {
      "type": "string",
      "title": " The Cape Schema ",
      "pattern": "^[0-9]*$"
    },
    …

The model is applied to the /customizations/post method as part of the Method Request. The Request Validator is set to Validate body and the CustomizationPost model is set for the Request Body.

API Gateway request validator

API Gateway request validator

When testing the POST /customizations API with valid parameters using the following input:

{  
   "name":"Cherry-themed unicorn",
   "imageUrl":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry#/media/File:Cherry_Stella444.jpg",
   "sock": "1",
   "horn": "2",
   "glasses": "3",
   "cape": "4"
}

The result is a valid response:

{"customUnicornId":<the-id-of-the-customization>}

Testing validation to the POST /customizations API using invalid parameters shows the input validation process.

The ImageUrl is not a valid URL:

 {  
    "name":"Cherry-themed unicorn",
    "imageUrl":"htt://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry#/media/File:Cherry_Stella444.jpg",
    "sock": "1" ,
    "horn": "2" ,
    "glasses": "3",
    "cape": "4"
 }

The Cape parameter is not a number, which shows a SQL injection attempt.

 {  
    "name":"Orange-themed unicorn",
    "imageUrl":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_(fruit)#/media/File:Orange-Whole-%26-Split.jpg",
    "sock": "1",
    "horn": "2",
    "glasses": "3",
    "cape":"2); INSERT INTO Cape (NAME,PRICE) VALUES ('Bad color', 10000.00"
 }

These return a 400 Bad Request response from API Gateway before invoking the Lambda function:

{"message": "Invalid request body"}

To gain further protection, consider adding an AWS Web Application Firewall (AWS WAF) access control list to your API endpoint. The workshop includes an AWS WAF module to explore three AWS WAF rules:

  • Restrict the maximum size of request body
  • SQL injection condition as part of the request URI
  • Rate-based rule to prevent an overwhelming number of requests
AWS WAF ACL

AWS WAF ACL

AWS WAF also includes support for custom responses and request header insertion to improve the user experience and security posture of your applications.

For more API Gateway security information, see the security overview whitepaper.

Also add further input validation logic to your Lambda function code itself. For examples, see “Input Validation for Serverless”.

Conclusion

Implementing application security in your workload involves reviewing and automating security practices at the application code level. By implementing code security, you can protect against emerging security threats. You can improve the security posture by checking for malicious code, including third-party dependencies.

In this post, I cover reviewing security awareness documentation such as the CVE database. I show how to use GitHub security features to inspect and manage code dependencies. I then show how to validate inbound events using API Gateway request validation.

This well-architected question will be continued where I look at securely storing, auditing, and rotating secrets that are used in your application code.

For more serverless learning resources, visit Serverless Land.

Building well-architected serverless applications: Managing application security boundaries – part 1

Post Syndicated from Julian Wood original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/compute/building-well-architected-serverless-applications-managing-application-security-boundaries-part-1/

This series of blog posts uses the AWS Well-Architected Tool with the Serverless Lens to help customers build and operate applications using best practices. In each post, I address the serverless-specific questions identified by the Serverless Lens along with the recommended best practices. See the introduction post for a table of contents and explanation of the example application.

Security question SEC2: How do you manage your serverless application’s security boundaries?

Defining and securing your serverless application’s boundaries ensures isolation for, within, and between components.

Required practice: Evaluate and define resource policies

Resource policies are AWS Identity and Access Management (IAM) statements. They are attached to resources such as an Amazon S3 bucket, or an Amazon API Gateway REST API resource or method. The policies define what identities have fine-grained access to the resource. To see which services support resource-based policies, see “AWS Services That Work with IAM”. For more information on how resource policies and identity policies are evaluated, see “Identity-Based Policies and Resource-Based Policies”.

Understand and determine which resource policies are necessary

Resource policies can protect a component by restricting inbound access to managed services. Use resource policies to restrict access to your component based on a number of identities, such as the source IP address/range, function event source, version, alias, or queues. Resource policies are evaluated and enforced at IAM level before each AWS service applies it’s own authorization mechanisms, when available. For example, IAM resource policies for API Gateway REST APIs can deny access to an API before an AWS Lambda authorizer is called.

If you use multiple AWS accounts, you can use AWS Organizations to manage and govern individual member accounts centrally. Certain resource policies can be applied at the organizations level, providing guardrail for what actions AWS accounts within the organization root or OU can do. For more information see, “Understanding how AWS Organization Service Control Policies work”.

Review your existing policies and how they’re configured, paying close attention to how permissive individual policies are. Your resource policies should only permit necessary callers.

Implement resource policies to prevent unauthorized access

For Lambda, use resource-based policies to provide fine-grained access to what AWS IAM identities and event sources can invoke a specific version or alias of your function. Resource-based policies can also be used to control access to Lambda layers. You can combine resource policies with Lambda event sources. For example, if API Gateway invokes Lambda, you can restrict the policy to the API Gateway ID, HTTP method, and path of the request.

In the serverless airline example used in this series, the IngestLoyalty service uses a Lambda function that subscribes to an Amazon Simple Notification Service (Amazon SNS) topic. The Lambda function resource policy allows SNS to invoke the Lambda function.

Lambda resource policy document

Lambda resource policy document

API Gateway resource-based policies can restrict API access to specific Amazon Virtual Private Cloud (VPC), VPC endpoint, source IP address/range, AWS account, or AWS IAM users.

Amazon Simple Queue Service (SQS) resource-based policies provide fine-grained access to certain AWS services and AWS IAM identities (users, roles, accounts). Amazon SNS resource-based policies restrict authenticated and non-authenticated actions to topics.

Amazon DynamoDB resource-based policies provide fine-grained access to tables and indexes. Amazon EventBridge resource-based policies restrict AWS identities to send and receive events including to specific event buses.

For Amazon S3, use bucket policies to grant permission to your Amazon S3 resources.

The AWS re:Invent session Best practices for growing a serverless application includes further suggestions on enforcing security best practices.

Best practices for growing a serverless application

Best practices for growing a serverless application

Good practice: Control network traffic at all layers

Apply controls for controlling both inbound and outbound traffic, including data loss prevention. Define requirements that help you protect your networks and protect against exfiltration.

Use networking controls to enforce access patterns

API Gateway and AWS AppSync have support for AWS Web Application Firewall (AWS WAF) which helps protect web applications and APIs from attacks. AWS WAF enables you to configure a set of rules called a web access control list (web ACL). These allow you to block, or count web requests based on customizable web security rules and conditions that you define. These can include specified IP address ranges, CIDR blocks, specific countries, or Regions. You can also block requests that contain malicious SQL code, or requests that contain malicious script. For more information, see How AWS WAF Works.

private API endpoint is an API Gateway interface VPC endpoint that can only be accessed from your Amazon Virtual Private Cloud (Amazon VPC). This is an elastic network interface that you create in a VPC. Traffic to your private API uses secure connections and does not leave the Amazon network, it is isolated from the public internet. For more information, see “Creating a private API in Amazon API Gateway”.

To restrict access to your private API to specific VPCs and VPC endpoints, you must add conditions to your API’s resource policy. For example policies, see the documentation.

By default, Lambda runs your functions in a secure Lambda-owned VPC that is not connected to your account’s default VPC. Functions can access anything available on the public internet. This includes other AWS services, HTTPS endpoints for APIs, or services and endpoints outside AWS. The function cannot directly connect to your private resources inside of your VPC.

You can configure a Lambda function to connect to private subnets in a VPC in your account. When a Lambda function is configured to use a VPC, the Lambda function still runs inside the Lambda service VPC. The function then sends all network traffic through your VPC and abides by your VPC’s network controls. Functions deployed to virtual private networks must consider network access to restrict resource access.

AWS Lambda service VPC with VPC-to-VPT NAT to customer VPC

AWS Lambda service VPC with VPC-to-VPT NAT to customer VPC

When you connect a function to a VPC in your account, the function cannot access the internet, unless the VPC provides access. To give your function access to the internet, route outbound traffic to a NAT gateway in a public subnet. The NAT gateway has a public IP address and can connect to the internet through the VPC’s internet gateway. For more information, see “How do I give internet access to my Lambda function in a VPC?”. Connecting a function to a public subnet doesn’t give it internet access or a public IP address.

You can control the VPC settings for your Lambda functions using AWS IAM condition keys. For example, you can require that all functions in your organization are connected to a VPC. You can also specify the subnets and security groups that the function’s users can and can’t use.

Unsolicited inbound traffic to a Lambda function isn’t permitted by default. There is no direct network access to the execution environment where your functions run. When connected to a VPC, function outbound traffic comes from your own network address space.

You can use security groups, which act as a virtual firewall to control outbound traffic for functions connected to a VPC. Use security groups to permit your Lambda function to communicate with other AWS resources. For example, a security group can allow the function to connect to an Amazon ElastiCache cluster.

To filter or block access to certain locations, use VPC routing tables to configure routing to different networking appliances. Use network ACLs to block access to CIDR IP ranges or ports, if necessary. For more information about the differences between security groups and network ACLs, see “Compare security groups and network ACLs.”

In addition to API Gateway private endpoints, several AWS services offer VPC endpoints, including Lambda. You can use VPC endpoints to connect to AWS services from within a VPC without an internet gateway, NAT device, VPN connection, or AWS Direct Connect connection.

Using tools to audit your traffic

When you configure a Lambda function to use a VPC, or use private API endpoints, you can use VPC Flow Logs to audit your traffic. VPC Flow Logs allow you to capture information about the IP traffic going to and from network interfaces in your VPC. Flow log data can be published to Amazon CloudWatch Logs or S3 to see where traffic is being sent to at a granular level. Here are some flow log record examples. For more information, see “Learn from your VPC Flow Logs”.

Block network access when required

In addition to security groups and network ACLs, third-party tools allow you to disable outgoing VPC internet traffic. These can also be configured to allow traffic to AWS services or allow-listed services.

Conclusion

Managing your serverless application’s security boundaries ensures isolation for, within, and between components. In this post, I cover how to evaluate and define resource policies, showing what policies are available for various serverless services. I show some of the features of AWS WAF to protect APIs. Then I review how to control network traffic at all layers. I explain how Lambda functions connect to VPCs, and how to use private APIs and VPC endpoints. I walk through how to audit your traffic.

This well-architected question will be continued where I look at using temporary credentials between resources and components. I cover why smaller, single purpose functions are better from a security perspective, and how to audit permissions. I show how to use AWS Serverless Application Model (AWS SAM) to create per-function IAM roles.

For more serverless learning resources, visit https://serverlessland.com.

Choosing a Well-Architected CI/CD approach: Open-source software and AWS Services

Post Syndicated from Brian Carlson original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/devops/choosing-well-architected-ci-cd-open-source-software-aws-services/

This series of posts discusses making informed decisions when choosing to implement open-source tools on AWS services, adopt managed AWS services to satisfy the same needs, or use a combination of both.

We look at key considerations for evaluating open-source software and AWS services using the perspectives of a startup company and a mature company as examples. You can use these two different points of view to compare to your own organization. To make this investigation easier we will use Continuous Integration (CI) and Continuous Delivery (CD) capabilities as the target of our investigation.

Startup Company rocket and Mature Company rocket

In two related posts, we follow two AWS customers, Iponweb and BigHat Biosciences, as they share their CI/CD journeys, their perspectives, the decisions they made, and why. To end the series, we explore an example reference architecture showing the benefits AWS provides regardless of your emphasis on open-source tools or managed AWS services.

Why CI/CD?

Until your creations are in the hands of your customers, investment in development has provided no return. The faster valuable changes enter production, the greater positive impact you can have on your customer. In today’s highly competitive world, the ability to frequently and consistently deliver value is a competitive advantage. The Operational Excellence (OE) pillar of the AWS Well-Architected Framework recognizes this impact and focuses on the capabilities of CI/CD in two dedicated sections.

The concepts in CI/CD originate from software engineering but apply equally to any form of content. The goal is to support development, integration, testing, deployment, and delivery to production. For example, making changes to an application, updating your machine learning (ML) models, changing your multimedia assets, or referring to the AWS Well-Architected Framework.

Adopting CI/CD and the best practices from the Operational Excellence pillar can help you address risks in your environment, and limit errors from manual processes. More importantly, they help free your teams from the related manual processes, so they can focus on satisfying customer needs, differentiating your organization, and accelerating the flow of valuable changes into production.

A red question mark sits on a field of chaotically arranged black question marks.

How do you decide what you need?

The first question in the Operational Excellence pillar is about understanding needs and making informed decisions. To help you frame your own decision-making process, we explore key considerations from the perspective of a fictional startup company and a fictional mature company. In our two related posts, we explore these same considerations with Iponweb and BigHat.

The key considerations include:

  • Functional requirements – Providing specific features and capabilities that deliver value to your customers.
  • Non-functional requirements – Enabling the safe, effective, and efficient delivery of the functional requirements. Non-functional requirements include security, reliability, performance, and cost requirements.
    • Without security, you can’t earn customer trust. If your customers can’t trust you, you won’t have customers.
    • Without reliability you aren’t available to serve your customers. If you can’t serve your customers, you won’t have customers.
    • Performance is focused on timely and efficient delivery of value, not delivering as fast as possible.
    • Cost is focused on optimizing the value received for the resources spent (for example, money, time, or effort), not minimizing expense.
  • Operational requirements – Enabling you to effectively and efficiently support, maintain, sustain, and improve the delivery of value to your customers. When you “Design with Ops in Mind,” you’re enabling effective and efficient support for your business outcomes.

These non-feature-related key considerations are why Operational Excellence, Security, Reliability, Performance Efficiency, and Cost Optimization are the five pillars of the AWS Well-Architected Framework.

The startup company

Any startup begins as a small team of inspired people working together to realize the unique solution they believe solves an unsolved problem.

For our fictional small team, everyone knows each other personally and all speak frequently. We share processes and procedures in discussions, and everyone know what needs to be done. Our team members bring their expertise and dedicate it, and the majority of their work time, to delivering our solution. The results of our efforts inform changes we make to support our next iteration.

However, our manual activities are error-prone and inconsistencies exist in the way we do them. Performing these tasks takes time away from delivering our solution. When errors occur, they have the potential to disrupt everyone’s progress.

We have capital available to make some investments. We would prefer to bring in more team members who can contribute directly to developing our solution. We need to iterate faster if we are to achieve a broadly viable product in time to qualify for our next round of funding. We need to decide what investments to make.

  • Goals – Reach the next milestone and secure funding to continue development
  • Needs – Reduce or eliminate the manual processes and associated errors
  • Priority – Rapid iteration
  • CI/CD emphasis – Baseline CI/CD capabilities and non-functional requirements are emphasized over a rich feature set

The mature company

Our second fictional company is a large and mature organization operating in a mature market segment. We’re focused on consistent, quality customer experiences to serve and retain our customers.

Our size limits the personal relationships between our service and development teams. The process to make requests, and the interfaces between teams and their systems, are well documented and understood.

However, the systems we have implemented over time, as needs were identified and addressed, aren’t well documented. Our existing tool chain includes some in-house scripting and both supported and unsupported versions of open-source tools. There are limited opportunities for us to acquire new customers.

When conditions change and new features are desired, we want to be able to rapidly implement and deploy those features as fast as possible. If we can differentiate our services, however briefly, we may be able to win customers away from our competitors. Our other path to improved profitability is to evolve our processes, maximizing integration and efficiencies, and capturing cost reductions.

  • Goals – Differentiate ourselves in the marketplace with desired new features
  • Needs – Address the risks of poorly documented systems and unsupported software
  • Priority – Evolve efficiency
  • CI/CD emphasis – Rich feature set and integrations are emphasized over improving the existing non-functional capabilities

Open-source tools on AWS vs. AWS services

The choice of open-source tools or AWS service is not binary. You can select the combination of solutions that provides the greatest value. You can implement open-source tools for their specific benefits where they outweigh the costs and operational burden, using underlying AWS services like Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud (Amazon EC2) to host them. You can then use AWS managed services, like AWS CodeBuild, for the undifferentiated features you need, without additional cost or operational burden.

A group of people sit around a table discussing the pieces of a puzzle and their ideas.

Feature Set

Our fictional organizations both want to accelerate the flow of beneficial changes into production and are evaluating CI/CD alternatives to support that outcome. Our startup company wants a working solution—basic capabilities, author/code, build, and deploy, so that they can focus on development. Our mature company is seeking every advantage—a rich feature set, extensive opportunities for customization, integration capabilities, and fine-grained control.

Open-source tools

Open-source tools often excel at meeting functional requirements. When a new functionality, capability, or integration is desired, any developer can implement it for themselves, and then contribute their code back to the project. As the user community for an open-source project expands the number of use cases and the features identified grows, so does the number of potential solutions and potential contributors. Developers are using these tools to support their efforts and implement new features that provide value to them.

However, features may be released in unsupported versions and then later added to the supported feature set. Non-functional requirements take time and are less appealing because they don’t typically bring immediate value to the product. Non-functional capabilities may lag behind the feature set.

Consider the following:

  • Open-source tools may have more features and existing integrations to other tools
  • The pace of feature set delivery may be extremely rapid
  • The features delivered are those desired and created by the active members of the community
  • You are free to implement the features your company desires
  • There is no commitment to long-term support for the project or any given feature
  • You can implement open-source tools on multiple cloud providers or on premises
  • If the project is abandoned, you’re responsible for maintaining your implementation

AWS services

AWS services are driven by customer needs. Services and features are supported by dedicated teams. These customer-obsessed teams focus on all customer needs, with security being their top priority. Both functional and non-functional requirements are addressed with an emphasis on enabling customer outcomes while minimizing the effort they expend to achieve them.

Consider the following:

  • The pace of delivery of feature sets is consistent
  • The feature roadmap is driven by customer need and customer requests
  • The AWS service team is dedicated to support of the service
  • AWS services are available on the AWS Cloud and on premises through AWS Outposts

Picture showing symbol of dollar

Cost Optimization

Why are we discussing cost after the feature set? Security and reliability are fundamentally more important. Leadership naturally gravitates to following the operational excellence best practice of evaluating trade-offs. Having looked at the potential benefits from the feature set, the next question is typically, “What is this going to cost?” Leadership defines the priorities and allocates the resources necessary (capital, time, effort). We review cost optimization second so that leadership can make a comparison of the expected benefits between CI/CD investments, and investments in other efforts, so they can make an informed decision.

Our organizations are both cost conscious. Our startup is working with finite capital and time. In contrast, our mature company can plan to make investments over time and budget for the needed capital. Early investment in a robust and feature-rich CI/CD tool chain could provide significant advantages towards the startup’s long-term success, but if the startup fails early, the value of that investment will never be realized. The mature company can afford to realize the value of their investment over time and can make targeted investments to address specific short-term needs.

Open-source tools

Open-source software doesn’t have to be purchased, but there are costs to adopt. Open-source tools require appropriate skills in order to be implemented, and to perform management and maintenance activities. Those skills must be gained through dedicated training of team members, team member self-study, or by hiring new team members with the existing skills. The availability of skilled practitioners of open-source tools varies with how popular a tool is and how long it has had an active community. Loss of skilled team members includes the loss of their institutional knowledge and intimacy with the implementation. Skills must be maintained with changes to the tools and as team members join or leave. Time is required from skilled team members to support management and maintenance activities. If commercial support for the tool is desired, it may be available through third-parties at an additional cost.

The time to value of an open-source implementation includes the time to implement and configure the resources and software. Additional value may be realized through investment of time configuring or implementing desired integrations and capabilities. There may be existing community-supported integrations or capabilities that reduce the level of effort to achieve these.

Consider the following:

  • No cost to acquire the software.
  • The availability of skill practitioners of open-source tools may be lower. Cost (capital and time) to acquire, establish, or maintain skill set may be higher.
  • There is an ongoing cost to maintain the team member skills necessary to support the open-source tools.
  • There is an ongoing cost of time for team members to perform management and maintenance activities.
  • Additional commercial support for open-source tools may be available at additional cost
  • Time to value includes implementation and configuration of resources and the open-source software. There may be more predefined community integrations.

AWS services

AWS services are provided pay-as-you-go with no required upfront costs. As of August 2020, more than 400,000 individuals hold active AWS Certifications, a number that grew more than 85% between August 2019 and August 2020.

Time to value for AWS services is extremely short and limited to the time to instantiate or configure the service for your use. Additional value may be realized through the investment of time configuring or implementing desired integrations. Predefined integrations for AWS services are added as part of the service development roadmap. However, there may be fewer existing integrations to reduce your level of effort.

Consider the following:

  • No cost to acquire the software; AWS services are pay-as-you-go for use.
  • AWS skill sets are broadly available. Cost (capital and time) to acquire, establish, or maintain skill sets may be lower.
  • AWS services are fully managed, and service teams are responsible for the operation of the services.
  • Time to value is limited to the time to instantiate or configure the service. There may be fewer predefined integrations.
  • Additional support for AWS services is available through AWS Support. Cost for support varies based on level of support and your AWS utilization.

Open-source tools on AWS services

Open-source tools on AWS services don’t impact these cost considerations. Migration off of either of these solutions is similarly not differentiated. In either case, you have to invest time in replacing the integrations and customizations you wish to maintain.

Picture showing a checkmark put on security

Security

Both organizations are concerned about reputation and customer trust. They both want to act to protect their information systems and are focusing on confidentiality and integrity of data. They both take security very seriously. Our startup wants to be secure by default and wants to trust the vendor to address vulnerabilities within the service. Our mature company has dedicated resources that focus on security, and the company practices defense in depth across internal organizations.

The startup and the mature company both want to know whether a choice is safe, secure, and can validate the security of their choice. They also want to understand their responsibilities and the shared responsibility model that applies.

Open-source tools

Open-source tools are the product of the contributors and may contain flaws or vulnerabilities. The entire community has access to the code to test and validate. There are frequently many eyes evaluating the security of the tools. A company or individual may perform a validation for themselves. However, there may be limited guidance on secure configurations. Controls in the implementer’s environment may reduce potential risk.

Consider the following:

  • You’re responsible for the security of the open-source software you implement
  • You control the security of your data within your open-source implementation
  • You can validate the security of the code and act as desired

AWS services

AWS service teams make security their highest priority and are able to respond rapidly when flaws are identified. There is robust guidance provided to support configuring AWS services securely.

Consider the following:

  • AWS is responsible for the security of the cloud and the underlying services
  • You are responsible for the security of your data in the cloud and how you configure AWS services
  • You must rely on the AWS service team to validate the security of the code

Open-source tools on AWS services

Open-source tools on AWS services combine these considerations; the customer is responsible for the open-source implementation and the configuration of the AWS services it consumes. AWS is responsible for the security of the AWS Cloud and the managed AWS services.

Picture showing global distribution for redundancy to depict reliability

Reliability

Everyone wants reliable capabilities. What varies between companies is their appetite for risk, and how much they can tolerate the impact of non-availability. The startup emphasized the need for their systems to be available to support their rapid iterations. The mature company is operating with some existing reliability risks, including unsupported open-source tools and in-house scripts.

The startup and the mature company both want to understand the expected reliability of a choice, meaning what percentage of the time it is expected to be available. They both want to know if a choice is designed for high availability and will remain available even if a portion of the systems fails or is in a degraded state. They both want to understand the durability of their data, how to perform backups of their data, and how to perform recovery in the event of a failure.

Both companies need to determine what is an acceptable outage duration, commonly referred to as a Recovery Time Objective (RTO), and for what quantity of elapsed time it is acceptable to lose transactions (including committing changes), commonly referred to as Recovery Point Objective (RPO). They need to evaluate if they can achieve their RTO and RPO objectives with each of the choices they are considering.

Open-source tools

Open-source reliability is dependent upon the effectiveness of the company’s implementation, the underlying resources supporting the implementation, and the reliability of the open-source software. Open-source tools are the product of the contributors and may or may not incorporate high availability features. Depending on the implementation and tool, there may be a requirement for downtime for specific management or maintenance activities. The ability to support RTO and RPO depends on the teams supporting the company system, the implementation, and the mechanisms implemented for backup and recovery.

Consider the following:

  • You are responsible for implementing your open-source software to satisfy your reliability needs and high availability needs
  • Open-source tools may have downtime requirements to support specific management or maintenance activities
  • You are responsible for defining, implementing, and testing the backup and recovery mechanisms and procedures
  • You are responsible for the satisfaction of your RTO and RPO in the event of a failure of your open-source system

AWS services

AWS services are designed to support customer availability needs. As managed services, the service teams are responsible for maintaining the health of the services.

Consider the following:

Open-source tools on AWS services

Open-source tools on AWS services combine these considerations; the customer is responsible for the open-source implementation (including data durability, backup, and recovery) and the configuration of the AWS services it consumes. AWS is responsible for the health of the AWS Cloud and the managed services.

Picture showing a graph depicting performance measurement

Performance

What defines timely and efficient delivery of value varies between our two companies. Each is looking for results before an engineer becomes idled by having to wait for results. The startup iterates rapidly based on the results of each prior iteration. There is limited other activity for our startup engineer to perform before they have to wait on actionable results. Our mature company is more likely to have an outstanding backlog or improvements that can be acted upon while changes moves through the pipeline.

Open-source tools

Open-source performance is defined by the resources upon which it is deployed. Open-source tools that can scale out can dynamically improve their performance when resource constrained. Performance can also be improved by scaling up, which is required when performance is constrained by resources and scaling out isn’t supported. The performance of open-source tools may be constrained by characteristics of how they were implemented in code or the libraries they use. If this is the case, the code is available for community or implementer-created improvements to address the limitation.

Consider the following:

  • You are responsible for managing the performance of your open-source tools
  • The performance of open-source tools may be constrained by the resources they are implemented upon; the code and libraries used; their system, resource, and software configuration; and the code and libraries present within the tools

AWS services

AWS services are designed to be highly scalable. CodeCommit has a highly scalable architecture, and CodeBuild scales up and down dynamically to meet your build volume. CodePipeline allows you to run actions in parallel in order to increase your workflow speeds.

Consider the following:

  • AWS services are fully managed, and service teams are responsible for the performance of the services.
  • AWS services are designed to scale automatically.
  • Your configuration of the services you consume can affect the performance of those services.
  • AWS services quotas exist to prevent unexpected costs. You can make changes to service quotas that may affect performance and costs.

Open-source tools on AWS services

Open-source tools on AWS services combine these considerations; the customer is responsible for the open-source implementation (including the selection and configuration of the AWS Cloud resources) and the configuration of the AWS services it consumes. AWS is responsible for the performance of the AWS Cloud and the managed AWS services.

Picture showing cart-wheels in motion, depicting operations

Operations

Our startup company wants to limit its operations burden as much as possible in order to focus on development efforts. Our mature company has an established and robust operations capability. In both cases, they perform the management and maintenance activities necessary to support their needs.

Open-source tools

Open-source tools are supported by their volunteer communities. That support is voluntary, without any obligation or commitment from the users. If either company adopts open-source tools, they’re responsible for the management and maintenance of the system. If they want additional support with an obligation and commitment to support their implementation, third parties may provide commercial support at additional cost.

Consider the following:

  • You are responsible for supporting your implementation.
  • The open-source community may provide volunteer support for the software.
  • There is no commitment to support the software by the open-source community.
  • There may be less documentation, or accepted best practices, available to support open-source tools.
  • Early adoption of open-source tools, or the use of development builds, includes the chance of encountering unidentified edge cases and unanticipated issues.
  • The complexity of an implementation and its integrations may increase the difficulty to support open-source tools. The time to identify contributing factors may be extended by the complexity during an incident. Maintaining a set of skilled team members with deep understanding of your implementation may help mitigate this risk.
  • You may be able to acquire commercial support through a third party.

AWS services

AWS services are committed to providing long-term support for their customers.

Consider the following:

  • There is long-term commitment from AWS to support the service
  • As a managed service, the service team maintains current documentation
  • Additional levels of support are available through AWS Support
  • Support for AWS is available through partners and third parties

Open-source tools on AWS services

Open-source tools on AWS services combine these considerations. The company is responsible for operating the open-source tools (for example, software configuration changes, updates, patching, and responding to faults). AWS is responsible for the operation of the AWS Cloud and the managed AWS services.

Conclusion

In this post, we discussed how to make informed decisions when choosing to implement open-source tools on AWS services, adopt managed AWS services, or use a combination of both. To do so, you must examine your organization and evaluate the benefits and risks.

A magnifying glass is focused on the single red figure in a group of otherwise blue paper figures standing on a white surface.

Examine your organization

You can make an informed decision about the capabilities you adopt. The insight you need can be gained by examining your organization to identify your goals, needs, and priorities, and discovering what your current emphasis is. Ask the following questions:

  • What is your organization trying to accomplish and why?
  • How large is your organization and how is it structured?
  • How are roles and responsibilities distributed across teams?
  • How well defined and understood are your processes and procedures?
  • How do you manage development, testing, delivery, and deployment today?
  • What are the major challenges your organization faces?
  • What are the challenges you face managing development?
  • What problems are you trying to solve with CI/CD tools?
  • What do you want to achieve with CI/CD tools?

Evaluate benefits and risk

Armed with that knowledge, the next step is to explore the trade-offs between open-source options and managed AWS services. Then evaluate the benefits and risks in terms of the key considerations:

  • Features
  • Cost
  • Security
  • Reliability
  • Performance
  • Operations

When asked “What is the correct answer?” the answer should never be “It depends.” We need to change the question to “What is our use case and what are our needs?” The answer will emerge from there.

Make an informed decision

A Well-Architected solution can include open-source tools, AWS Services, or any combination of both! A Well-Architected choice is an informed decision that evaluates trade-offs, balances benefits and risks, satisfies your requirements, and most importantly supports the achievement of your business outcomes.

Read the other posts in this series and take this journey with BigHat Biosciences and Iponweb as they share their perspectives, the decisions they made, and why.

Resources

Want to learn more? Check out the following CI/CD and developer tools on AWS:

Continuous integration (CI)
Continuous delivery (CD)
AWS Developer Tools

For more information about the AWS Well-Architected Framework, refer to the following whitepapers:

AWS Well-Architected Framework
AWS Well-Architected Operational Excellence pillar
AWS Well-Architected Security pillar
AWS Well-Architected Reliability pillar
AWS Well-Architected Performance Efficiency pillar
AWS Well-Architected Cost Optimization pillar

The 3 hexagons of the well architected logo appear to the right of the words AWS Well-Architected.

Author bio

portrait photo of Brian Carlson Brian is the global Operational Excellence lead for the AWS Well-Architected program. Formerly the technical lead for an international network, Brian works with customers and partners researching the operations best practices with the greatest positive impact and produces guidance to help you achieve your goals.

 

Choosing a CI/CD approach: Open Source on AWS, an Iponweb story

Post Syndicated from Mikhail Vasilyev original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/devops/choosing-a-ci-cd-approach-open-source-on-aws-an-iponweb-story/

Iponweb is a global leader in building programmatic and real-time advertising technology and infrastructure for some of the world’s biggest digital media buyers and sellers. The company develops client-facing products and internal development tools that must be platform agnostic to support spanning across multiple cloud services.

In this post, we explore how Iponweb applied key considerations when choosing a continuous integration, continuous deployment (CI/CD), what they determined to be the right CI/CD approach for them, and review some considerations that may apply to your own business needs. And in the next post, we will dive even deeper into these key considerations.

How did Iponweb decide what they needed?

The first and most important question in designing a Well-Architected approach is: “How do you determine your priorities?” AWS Well-Architected defines the first two best practices to do that as: ”evaluate external customer needs” (Iponweb’s clients) and “evaluate internal customer needs” (Iponweb’s team).

Iponweb started with these two considerations while selecting the strategic toolset. After evaluating their customers’ requirements, the next step was to look at the needs of the Iponweb team. Their priorities included the products and features required, the cost, and the ability to build multi-cloud solutions.

Iponweb is dedicated to operating securely with the reliability and performance to support their customers. Solutions had to satisfy their fundamental requirements in these areas to be considered in their evaluation.

Feature set

Iponweb evaluated available options for the CI tool chain and found that, for their needs, GitLab was the clear winner, differentiated by delivering the greatest number of required features at the best price while being platform agnostic.

AWS had the complete set of tools, services, and best practices to support Iponweb’s goal to establish an open-source, self-hosted CI environment using GitLab. Upon completing their thorough evaluation process, Iponweb selected AWS to implement its CI environment.

Cost

Iponweb understood the investment they would be making within their team to leverage and support all the desired features of GitLab. Iponweb evaluated the expertise of its internal teams and factored in ease of integration with supporting services.

They adopted several AWS services that satisfied their undifferentiated needs, which allowed them to remove the operational burden and cost of maintaining their own implementations of various capabilities and features.

Furthermore, the availability of Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud (Amazon EC2) Spot Instances provided the opportunity to further manage costs for their CI resource needs and usage patterns.

Security

Iponweb leveraged their existing security control implementations and integration with AWS to support adopting additional AWS services. AWS was responsible for the security of the cloud, including the underlying AWS services. Iponweb was able to focus on secure and effective configurations of those services and secure and effective configuration of their GitLab implementation. This ensured the security of their open-source, self-hosted CI environment.

When setting priorities for the design of a Well-Architected approach, it’s imperative to “manage benefits and risks,” which emphasizes making informed decisions when adopting open source or any tools. Iponweb achieved their best value solution by applying Well-Architected practices in Operational Excellence, Cost Optimization, and Security pillars by leveraging AWS products and services.

Overview of solution

Continuous integration consists of three key processes, each of which AWS supports:

  • Code stage – Iponweb built the centralized Git repository on the GitLab platform on EC2 servers, providing the UI and API to store and manage the code.
  • Test and build stage – They used GitLab as the application layer to manage build and test flows through GitLab Runners (compute workers for CI jobs). This layer is implanted via GitLab in containers, and is deployed and managed by Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service (Amazon EKS).
  • Publish stageAmazon Elastic Container Registry (Amazon ECR) stores the infrastructure containers for the runners and product containers.

The following diagram illustrates this architecture:

At the core of Iponweb’s CI platform architecture is the open-source GitLab Community Edition.

Implementing the solution

CI jobs are either run regularly or triggered by events such as merge requests. The jobs are described as code in YAML files and are stored and versioned along with the product code itself. Runner versions are published into Amazon ECR and launched as Docker containers in Amazon EKS.

Runner code is stored as Helm charts that help Iponweb package up and manage their large-scale Kubernetes deployments. In addition, Amazon EKS has support for Helm and many other plugins for Kubernetes.

Iponweb developers innovate at a very fast pace, and customize Iponweb’s client solutions in rapid iterations. To address uncertain container registry requirements, Iponweb decided to use Amazon ECR. As a managed service, Amazon ECR eliminates concerns about scaling capacity and management. Integration of GitLab with Amazon EKS and Amazon ECR is provided out of the box through a UI and predefined scripts, with no additional overhead to develop and deploy code or plugins.

Iponweb was able to implement the Well-Architected design principle: “stop continuously estimating its capacity needs.” Enabling them to focus on more strategic development activities. They performed a thorough analysis of each component, looking at the total cost of ownership, including operations and management. In doing so, they implemented the best practice from the Cost Optimization pillar: “How do you evaluate cost when you select services?”

In the Cost Optimization pillar, a key question is “How do you use pricing models to reduce costs?” Iponweb deployed runners in Amazon EKS for precise, granular, and on-demand compute scaling for each CI job. These tasks have short-term capacity needs, so Iponweb benefited from configuring Amazon EKS on Spot Instances, achieving factor price reduction. The EC2 Spot pricing model is most appropriate for their CI resource needs and usage patterns.

To protect their data at rest, Iponweb followed a best practice from the Security pillar: “Implement secure key management.” They used AWS Key Management Service (AWS KMS) to manage secrets for the runners.

To protect the code and artifacts, and to ensure these valuable assets don’t leave the CI environment inappropriately, Iponweb followed best practices in Infrastructure Protection from the Security pillar question, “How do you protect your networks?” Iponweb scrupulously defined the network protection requirements, limiting their exposure by controlling traffic at all layers, and implementing security groups to prevent inappropriate access into and out of their VPC.

Michael Benuhis, CTO at Iponweb, says:

“Iponweb was able to get the best of open-source software and public cloud services by building the continuous integration platform on Amazon Web Services. Open-source tools provided Iponweb platform agnosticism for serving our diverse customer base, while managed Amazon EKS on EC2 Spot Instances eliminated the operational burden of managing our own Kubernetes infrastructure, and with greater cost efficiency.”

Conclusion

Iponweb has satisfied their current needs and aren’t looking for improvement in the short term. They will stay on the free version of GitLab, satisfied for the moment with what they have achieved. They have custom automations in place to synchronize with GitLab and integrate with their existing tools. They like the features provided by the paid version of GitLab, but there isn’t a business case to support an informed decision to upgrade at this time.

They have achieved their goal of using Amazon EKS and Spot under GitLab CI/CD integrated with their existing systems and satisfying their needs.

Top 15 Architecture Blog Posts of 2020

Post Syndicated from Jane Scolieri original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/architecture/top-15-architecture-blog-posts-of-2020/

The goal of the AWS Architecture Blog is to highlight best practices and provide architectural guidance. We publish thought leadership pieces that encourage readers to discover other technical documentation, such as solutions and managed solutions, other AWS blogs, videos, reference architectures, whitepapers, and guides, Training & Certification, case studies, and the AWS Architecture Monthly Magazine. We welcome your contributions!

Field Notes is a series of posts within the Architecture blog channel which provide hands-on technical guidance from AWS Solutions Architects, consultants, and technical account managers, based on their experiences in the field solving real-world business problems for customers.

We would like to thank you, our readers, for spending time on our blog this last year. Much appreciation also goes to our hard-working AWS Solutions Architects and other blog post writers. Below are the top 15 Architecture & Field Notes blog posts written in 2020.

#15: Field Notes: Choosing a Rehost Migration Tool – CloudEndure or AWS SMS

by Ebrahim (EB) Khiyami

In this post, Ebrahim provides some considerations and patterns where it’s recommended based on your migration requirements to choose one tool over the other.

Read Ebrahim’s post.

#14: Architecting for Reliable Scalability

by Marwan Al Shawi

In this post, Marwan explains how to architect your solution or application to reliably scale, when to scale and how to avoid complexity. He discusses several principles including modularity, horizontal scaling, automation, filtering and security.

Read Marwan’s post.

#13: Field Notes: Building an Autonomous Driving and ADAS Data Lake on AWS

by Junjie Tang and Dean Phillips

In this post, Junjie and Dean explain how to build an Autonomous Driving Data Lake using this Reference Architecture. They cover all steps in the workflow from how to ingest the data, to moving it into an organized data lake construct.

Read Junjie’s and Dean’s post.

#12: Building a Self-Service, Secure, & Continually Compliant Environment on AWS

by Japjot Walia and Jonathan Shapiro-Ward

In this post, Jopjot and Jonathan provide a reference architecture for highly regulated Enterprise organizations to help them maintain their security and compliance posture. This blog post provides an overview of a solution in which AWS Professional Services engaged with a major Global systemically important bank (G-SIB) customer to help develop ML capabilities and implement a Defense in Depth (DiD) security strategy.

Read Jopjot’s and Jonathan’s post.

#11: Introduction to Messaging for Modern Cloud Architecture

by Sam Dengler

In this post, Sam focuses on best practices when introducing messaging patterns into your applications. He reviews some core messaging concepts and shows how they can be used to address challenges when designing modern cloud architectures.

Read Sam’s post.

#10: Building a Scalable Document Pre-Processing Pipeline

by Joel Knight

In this post, Joel presents an overview of an architecture built for Quantiphi Inc. This pipeline performs pre-processing of documents, and is reusable for a wide array of document processing workloads.

Read Joel’s post.

#9: Introducing the Well-Architected Framework for Machine Learning

by by Shelbee Eigenbrode, Bardia Nikpourian, Sireesha Muppala, and Christian Williams

In the Machine Learning Lens whitepaper, the authors focus on how to design, deploy, and architect your machine learning workloads in the AWS Cloud. The whitepaper describes the general design principles and the five pillars of the Framework as they relate to ML workloads.

Read the post.

#8: BBVA: Helping Global Remote Working with Amazon AppStream 2.0

by Jose Luis Prieto

In this post, Jose explains why BBVA chose Amazon AppStream 2.0 to accommodate the remote work experience. BBVA built a global solution reducing implementation time by 90% compared to on-premises projects, and is meeting its operational and security requirements.

Read Jose’s post.

#7: Field Notes: Serverless Container-based APIs with Amazon ECS and Amazon API Gateway

by Simone Pomata

In this post, Simone guides you through the details of the option based on Amazon API Gateway and AWS Cloud Map, and how to implement it. First you learn how the different components (Amazon ECS, AWS Cloud Map, API Gateway, etc.) work together, then you launch and test a sample container-based API.

Read Simone’s post.

#6: Mercado Libre: How to Block Malicious Traffic in a Dynamic Environment

by Gaston Ansaldo and Matias Ezequiel De Santi

In this post, readers will learn how to architect a solution that can ingest, store, analyze, detect and block malicious traffic in an environment that is dynamic and distributed in nature by leveraging various AWS services like Amazon CloudFront, Amazon Athena and AWS WAF.

Read Gaston’s and Matias’ post.

#5: Announcing the New Version of the Well-Architected Framework

by Rodney Lester

In this post, Rodney announces the availability of a new version of the AWS Well-Architected Framework, and focuses on such issues as removing perceived repetition, adding content areas to explicitly call out previously implied best practices, and revising best practices to provide clarity.

Read Rodney’s post.

#4: Serverless Stream-Based Processing for Real-Time Insights

by Justin Pirtle

In this post, Justin provides an overview of streaming messaging services and AWS Serverless stream processing capabilities. He shows how it helps you achieve low-latency, near real-time data processing in your applications.

Read Justin’s post.

#3: Field Notes: Working with Route Tables in AWS Transit Gateway

by Prabhakaran Thirumeni

In this post, Prabhakaran explains the packet flow if both source and destination network are associated to the same or different AWS Transit Gateway Route Table. He outlines a scenario with a substantial number of VPCs, and how to make it easier for your network team to manage access for a growing environment.

Read Prabhakaran’s post.

#2: Using VPC Sharing for a Cost-Effective Multi-Account Microservice Architecture

by Anandprasanna Gaitonde and Mohit Malik

Anand and Mohit present a cost-effective approach for microservices that require a high degree of interconnectivity and are within the same trust boundaries. This approach requires less VPC management while still using separate accounts for billing and access control, and does not sacrifice scalability, high availability, fault tolerance, and security.

Read Anand’s and Mohit’s post.

#1: Serverless Architecture for a Web Scraping Solution

by Dzidas Martinaitis

You may wonder whether serverless architectures are cost-effective or expensive. In this post, Dzidas analyzes a web scraping solution. The project can be considered as a standard extract, transform, load process without a user interface and can be packed into a self-containing function or a library.

Read Dzidas’ post.

Thank You

Thanks again to all our readers and blog post writers! We look forward to learning and building amazing things together in 2021.

New – SaaS Lens in AWS Well-Architected Tool

Post Syndicated from Danilo Poccia original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/new-saas-lens-in-aws-well-architected-tool/

To help you build secure, high-performing, resilient, and efficient solutions on AWS, in 2015 we publicly launched the AWS Well-Architected Framework. It started as a single whitepaper but has expanded to include domain-specific lenses, hands-on labs, and the AWS Well-Architected Tool (available at no cost in the AWS Management Console) that provides a mechanism for regularly evaluating your workloads, identifying high risk issues, and recording your improvements.

To offer more workload-specific advice, in 2017 we extended the framework with the concept of “lens” to go beyond a general perspective and enter specific technology domains. Now, to help accelerate building Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) solutions, the AWS SaaS Factory team has led an effort to build a new AWS Well-Architected SaaS Lens.

SaaS is a licensing and delivery model by which software is centrally managed and hosted by a provider and available to customers on a subscription basis. In this way, software providers can innovate rapidly, optimize their costs, and gain operational efficiencies. At the same time, customers benefit from simplified IT management, speed, and a pay-for-what-you-use business model.

The Well-Architected SaaS Lens adds questions to the tool that are tailored to SaaS workloads and intended to drive critical thinking for developing and operating SaaS workloads. Each question has a list of best practices, and each best practice has a list of improvement plans to help guide you in implementing them. AWS Solution Architects from the AWS SaaS Factory Program, having worked with thousands of software developers and AWS Partners, view these well-architected patterns as a key component of building and operating a SaaS architecture on AWS.

Using the SaaS Lens in the Well-Architected Tool
In the Well-Architected Tool console, I start by defining my workload. Today, I’m reviewing a pre-production environment of a SaaS application. It’s just a minimum viable product (MVP) version of what I want to build, with just enough features to be usable and get a first feedback.

Now, I can choose which lenses to apply. The AWS Well-Architected Framework is there by default. I select the SaaS Lens. This is adding a set of additional questions that help me understand how to design, deploy, and architect my SaaS workload following the framework best practices. Other lenses are available in the tool, for example the Serverless Lens described here.

Now, I start my review. Many questions in the SaaS Lens are focused on how you are managing a multi-tenant application. This is the first question for the Operational Excellence pillar. I can also add some notes to explain my answer better or take note of what I want to improve.

I don’t need to answer all questions to start improving my SaaS application. For example, this is the improvement plan based on my answer to the previous question. For each point here, I can click and get more information on how to implement that on AWS.

Moving to the Reliability pillar, I feel more confident because of the techniques I used to separate individual tenants of my SaaS application in their own “sandbox” environment.

As I expect, no risks are detected this time!

When I finish reviewing the SaaS Lens for my workload, I get an overview of the detected risks. Here, I can also save a milestone that I can use later to compare my status and estimate my improvements.

Just below that, I get a suggestion on what to focus on next. Again, I can click and get in-depth suggestion on how to mitigate the risk.

As often happens in IT services, this is an iterative process. The AWS Well-Architected Tool helps quantify the risks and gives me a path to follow to continuously improve my SaaS application.

Available Now
The SaaS Lens is available today in all regions where the AWS Well-Architected Tool is offered, as described in the AWS Regional Services List. It can be applied to existing workloads, or used for new workloads you define in the tool.

There are no costs in using the AWS Well-Architected Tool; you can use it to improve the application you are working on, or to get visibility into multiple workloads used by the department or area you are working with.

Learn more about the new SaaS Lens and get started today with the AWS Well-Architected Tool!

Danilo

Integrating CloudEndure Disaster Recovery into your security incident response plan

Post Syndicated from Gonen Stein original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/security/integrating-cloudendure-disaster-recovery-into-your-security-incident-response-plan/

An incident response plan (also known as procedure) contains the detailed actions an organization takes to prepare for a security incident in its IT environment. It also includes the mechanisms to detect, analyze, contain, eradicate, and recover from a security incident. Every incident response plan should contain a section on recovery, which outlines scenarios ranging from single component to full environment recovery. This recovery section should include disaster recovery (DR), with procedures to recover your environment from complete failure. Effective recovery from an IT disaster requires tools that can automate preparation, testing, and recovery processes. In this post, I explain how to integrate CloudEndure Disaster Recovery into the recovery section of your incident response plan. CloudEndure Disaster Recovery is an Amazon Web Services (AWS) DR solution that enables fast, reliable recovery of physical, virtual, and cloud-based servers on AWS. This post also discusses how you can use CloudEndure Disaster Recovery to reduce downtime and data loss when responding to a security incident, and best practices for maintaining your incident response plan.

How disaster recovery fits into a security incident response plan

The AWS Well-Architected Framework security pillar provides guidance to help you apply best practices and current recommendations in the design, delivery, and maintenance of secure AWS workloads. It includes a recommendation to integrate tools to secure and protect your data. A secure data replication and recovery tool helps you protect your data if there’s a security incident and quickly return to normal business operation as you resolve the incident. The recovery section of your incident response plan should define recovery point objectives (RPOs) and recovery time objectives (RTOs) for your DR-protected workloads. RPO is the window of time that data loss can be tolerated due to a disruption. RTO is the amount of time permitted to recover workloads after a disruption.

Your DR response to a security incident can vary based on the type of incident you encounter. For example, your DR plan for responding to a security incident such as ransomware—which involves data corruption—should describe how to recover workloads on your secondary DR site using a recovery point prior to the data corruption. This use case will be discussed further in the next section.

In addition to tools and processes, your security incident response plan should define the roles and responsibilities necessary during an incident. This includes the people and roles in your organization who perform incident mitigation steps, in addition to those who need to be informed and consulted. This can include technology partners, application owners, or subject matter experts (SMEs) outside of your organization who can offer additional expertise. DR-related roles for your incident response plan include:

  • A person who analyzes the situation and provides visibility to decision-makers.
  • A person who decides whether or not to trigger a DR response.
  • A person who actively triggers the DR response.

Be sure to include all of the stakeholders you identify in your documented security incident response procedures and runbooks. Test your plan to verify that the people in these roles have the pre-provisioned access they need to perform their defined role.

How to use CloudEndure Disaster Recovery during a security incident

CloudEndure Disaster Recovery continuously replicates your servers—including OS, system state configuration, databases, applications, and files—to a staging area in your target AWS Region. The staging area contains low-cost resources automatically provisioned and managed by CloudEndure Disaster Recovery. This reduces the cost of provisioning duplicate resources during normal operation. Your fully provisioned recovery environment is launched only during an incident or drill.

If your organization experiences a security incident that can be remediated using DR, you can use CloudEndure Disaster Recovery to perform failover to your target AWS Region from your source environment. When you perform failover, CloudEndure Disaster Recovery orchestrates the recovery of your environment in your target AWS Region. This enables quick recovery, with RPOs of seconds and RTOs of minutes.

To deploy CloudEndure Disaster Recovery, you must first install the CloudEndure agent on the servers in your environment that you want to replicate for DR, and then initiate data replication to your target AWS Region. Once data replication is complete and your data is in sync, you can launch machines in your target AWS Region from the CloudEndure User Console. CloudEndure Disaster Recovery enables you to launch target machines in either Test Mode or Recovery Mode. Your launched machines behave the same way in either mode; the only difference is how the machine lifecycle is displayed in the CloudEndure User Console. Launch machines by opening the Machines page, shown in the following figure, and selecting the machines you want to launch. Then select either Test Mode or Recovery Mode from the Launch Target Machines menu.
 

Figure 1: Machines page on the CloudEndure User Console

Figure 1: Machines page on the CloudEndure User Console

You can launch your entire environment, a group of servers comprising one or more applications, or a single server in your target AWS Region. When you launch machines from the CloudEndure User Console, you’re prompted to choose a recovery point from the Choose Recovery Point dialog box (shown in the following figure).

Use point-in-time recovery to respond to security incidents that involve data corruption, such as ransomware. Your incident response plan should include a mechanism to determine when data corruption occurred. Knowing how to determine which recovery point to choose in the CloudEndure User Console helps you minimize response time during a security incident. Each recovery point is a point-in-time snapshot of your servers that you can use to launch recovery machines in your target AWS Region. Select the latest recovery point before the data corruption to restore your workloads on AWS, and then choose Continue With Launch.
 

Figure 2: Selection of an earlier recovery point from the Choose Recovery Point dialog box

Figure 2: Selection of an earlier recovery point from the Choose Recovery Point dialog box

Run your recovered workloads in your target AWS Region until you’ve resolved the security incident. When the incident is resolved, you can perform failback to your primary environment using CloudEndure Disaster Recovery. You can learn more about CloudEndure Disaster Recovery setup, operation, and recovery by taking this online CloudEndure Disaster Recovery Technical Training.

Test and maintain the recovery section of your incident response plan

Your entire incident response plan must be kept accurate and up to date in order to effectively remediate security incidents if they occur. A best practice for achieving this is through frequently testing all sections of your plan, including your tools. When you first deploy CloudEndure Disaster Recovery, begin running tests as soon as all of your replicated servers are in sync on your target AWS Region. DR solution implementation is generally considered complete when all initial testing has succeeded.

By correctly configuring the networking and security groups in your target AWS Region, you can use CloudEndure Disaster Recovery to launch a test workload in an isolated environment without impacting your source environment. You can run tests as often as you want. Tests don’t incur additional fees beyond payment for the fully provisioned resources generated during tests.

Testing involves two main components: launching the machines you wish to test on AWS, and performing user acceptance testing (UAT) on the launched machines.

  1. Launch machines to test.
     
    Select the machines to test from the Machines page of the CloudEndure User Console by selecting the check box next to the machine. Then choose Test Mode from the Launch Target Machines menu, as shown in the following figure. You can select the latest recovery point or an earlier recovery point.
     
    Figure 3: Select Test Mode to launch selected machines

    Figure 3: Select Test Mode to launch selected machines

     

    The following figure shows the CloudEndure User Console. The Disaster Recovery Lifecycle column shows that the machines have been Tested Recently.

    Figure 4: Machines launched in Test Mode display purple icons in the Status column and Tested Recently in the Disaster Recovery Lifecycle column

    Figure 4: Machines launched in Test Mode display purple icons in the Status column and Tested Recently in the Disaster Recovery Lifecycle column

  2. Perform UAT testing.
     
    Begin UAT testing when the machine launch job is successfully completed and your target machines have booted.

After you’ve successfully deployed, configured, and tested CloudEndure Disaster Recovery on your source environment, add it to your ongoing change management processes so that your incident response plan remains accurate and up-to-date. This includes deploying and testing CloudEndure Disaster Recovery every time you add new servers to your environment. In addition, monitor for changes to your existing resources and make corresponding changes to your CloudEndure Disaster Recovery configuration if necessary.

How CloudEndure Disaster Recovery keeps your data secure

CloudEndure Disaster Recovery has multiple mechanisms to keep your data secure and not introduce new security risks. Data replication is performed using AES 256-bit encryption in transit. Data at rest can be encrypted by using Amazon Elastic Block Store (Amazon EBS) encryption with an AWS managed key or a customer key. Amazon EBS encryption is supported by all volume types, and includes built-in key management infrastructure that has no performance impact. Replication traffic is transmitted directly from your source servers to your target AWS Region, and can be restricted to private connectivity such as AWS Direct Connect or a VPN. CloudEndure Disaster Recovery is ISO 27001 and GDPR compliant and HIPAA eligible.

Summary

Each organization tailors its incident response plan to meet its unique security requirements. As described in this post, you can use CloudEndure Disaster Recovery to improve your organization’s incident response plan. I also explained how to recover from an earlier point in time when you respond to security incidents involving data corruption, and how to test your servers as part of maintaining the DR section of your incident response plan. By following the guidance in this post, you can improve your IT resilience and recover more quickly from security incidents. You can also reduce your DR operational costs by avoiding duplicate provisioning of your DR infrastructure.

Visit the CloudEndure Disaster Recovery product page if you would like to learn more. You can also view the AWS Raise the Bar on Data Protection and Security webinar series for additional information on how to protect your data and improve IT resilience on AWS.

If you have feedback about this post, submit comments in the Comments section below.

Want more AWS Security how-to content, news, and feature announcements? Follow us on Twitter.

Author

Gonen Stein

Gonen is the Head of Product Strategy for CloudEndure, an AWS company. He combines his expertise in business, cloud infrastructure, storage, and information security to assist enterprise organizations with developing and deploying IT resilience and business continuity strategies in the cloud.

AWS Well-Architected for Financial Services

Post Syndicated from Arjun Chakraborty original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/architecture/aws-well-architected-for-financial-services/

Cloud is part of the new normal in the financial services industry. Higher customer expectations have raised the stakes, pushing institutions to streamline operations, lower costs, and accelerate innovation. The conversation is no longer about whether to embrace the cloud, but rather, how quickly it can be done. To address the need to provide tailored advice, AWS added the concept of AWS Well-Architected Lenses in 2017. AWS now is happy to announce Financial Services lens, the first industry specific guidance for the AWS Well-Architected Framework. This post provides an introduction of its purpose, topics covered, and common scenarios included.

In the Financial Services lens, we focus on how to design, deploy, and architect financial services industry workloads that promote the resiliency, security, and operational performance in line with risk and control objectives that firms define for themselves. This includes companies and industries that are required to meet the regulatory and compliance requirements of supervisory authorities.

While we recommend that AWS customers start with the standard AWS Well-Architected Framework as a foundation for their architecture review, the Financial Services lens provides additional best practices for the resiliency, security, and operational performance requirements of financial institutions. These best practices are based on our experience working with financial services customers globally.

The guidance inside the lens can be grouped under the following:

Well-Architected FinServ lens

General Design principles to improve security, data privacy, and resiliency in the cloud

These principles include both general design principles for unlocking the true value of cloud and specific best practices for your AWS environments. For example, we have advocated for a Security by Design approach (SbD), wherein firms should implement their architectures in repeatable templates that have control objectives, security baselines, and audit capabilities baked in. The lens also provides specific guidance on how to the implement this approach, such as how to protect your compute infrastructure and protect your data with encryption.

Guardrails to confidently build and deploy financial applications on AWS

The lens provides best practices in a number of areas including Identity and Access Management (IAM), networking, secrets management, data privacy, resiliency, and performance. When taken together with the standard Well-Architected Framework, it will help accelerate migration or new development of applications on the cloud while making sure that security, risk, and compliance needs are met as well.

Techniques to build transparency and auditability into your AWS environment

With AWS, customers have access to a higher fidelity of observability in terms of what happens in their environments compared to traditional on-premise environments. The lens identifies a number of best practices to harness this capability for better business and operational outcomes. We’ve also provided additional guidance on how to gather, store, and secure evidence for audit requirements associated with cloud environments.

Recommendations for controls to help expedite adoption of new AWS services

“Allow listing” new AWS services or certifying that a new service implements all the internal security and control standards is a time-consuming process for many financial services customers. It also holds back teams from leveraging innovation in new AWS services and features. In this lens, we have discussed a number of best practices in the areas of IAM privileges, private connectivity, and encryption which should help expedite the allow listing of new services.

The Financial Services Lens whitepaper is intended to provide guidance for common industry workloads, such as:

  • Financial data on the cloud
  • Building data lakes for use cases such as regulatory reporting
  • Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML)
  • Grid computing for risk and modeling
  • Building a platform for ML and AI
  • Open banking
  • Digital user engagement

If any of these scenarios fits your needs, building to the principles of the Financial Services lens in the AWS Well-Architected Framework can improve security, resiliency, and operational efficiency for all financial services customers on AWS, and can also assist in meeting regulatory and compliance obligations.

Conclusion

We strive to provide you with a consistent approach to evaluate architectures and implement designs that will scale over time. AWS is committed to the maintaining the Financial Services Lens whitepaper as a living document; as the technology and regulatory landscape evolves and new AWS services come on line, we’ll update the Financial Services lens appropriately. We are also actively working towards implementing the Financial Services lens in the Well-Architected Tool, so that teams can run Well-Architected reviews against best practices included in the whitepaper.

Special thanks to the following individuals who contributed to building this resource, among many others who helped with review and implementation: Ilya Epshteyn, Misha Goussev, Som Chatterjee, James Craig, Anjana Kandalam, Roberto Silva, Chris Redmond, Pawan Agnihotri, Rahul Prabhakar, Jaswinder Hayre, Jennifer Code, Igor Kleyman, John McDonald, and John Kain.

Liberty IT Adopts Serverless Best Practices Using AWS Cloud Development Kit

Post Syndicated from Andrew Robinson original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/architecture/liberty-it-adopts-serverless-best-practices-using-aws-cdk/

This post was co-written with Matthew Coulter, Lead Technical Architect of Global Risk at Liberty Mutual

Liberty IT Solutions, part of Liberty Mutual Group, has been using AWS CloudFormation to deploy serverless applications on AWS for the last four years. These deployments typically involve defining, integrating, and monitoring services such as AWS Lambda, Amazon API Gateway, and Amazon DynamoDB.

In this post, we will explore how Liberty took the AWS Cloud Development Kit (CDK), the AWS Well-Architected framework, and the Serverless Application Lens for the AWS Well-Architected Framework and built a set of CDK patterns in to help developers launch serverless resources.

Since each team was responsible for building and maintaining these applications, as soon as CloudFormation templates grew larger, it quickly became a challenge. As well, it was becoming increasingly time consuming to extract the relevant parts of the template for re-use. Even when teams were building similar applications with similar requirements, everything was built from scratch for that application.

Before we dive in, let’s cover some of the terminology in this blog post and provide you with some additional reading:

  • AWS CDK was launched as a software development framework to help you define cloud infrastructure as code and provision it through AWS CloudFormation.
  • AWS Well-Architected was developed to help cloud architects build secure, high performing, resilient, and efficient infrastructures for their applications.
  • Serverless Application Lens focuses on how to design, deploy, and architect your serverless application workloads on the AWS Cloud.

Background

The model Liberty used to develop these applications was based on small components that led to repeatable patterns, which made them ideal for sharing architectures across teams.

For example, if different teams built a web application using API Gateway, AWS Lambda, and Amazon DynamoDB, they could build a reusable pattern that included best practices after they battle tested it. This known infrastructure pattern could then be easily shared across multiple teams, ultimately increasing developer productivity.

Due to compliance requirements and controls in place, Liberty built these applications using CloudFormation with specific configurations. Teams had to frequently reverse engineer their CloudFormation templates from previous proof of concepts (PoCs), as there were no high-level abstractions available. If there were similar examples out there, they’d have to engineer it back to CloudFormation with our controls in place in order to use it in production.

That’s where CDK comes in

Matt Coulter at Liberty (and co-author of this blog post), said, “After researching CDK, we thought it would be a good fit for producing the patterns we wanted to, and providing an open source framework for others to contribute to the patterns, and to build their own.”

In an initial PoC, Liberty was able to take more than 2,000 lines of YAML CloudFormation down to just 14 lines of code, which came packaged with its own unit tests. This could then be published to NPM or GitHub to share with the rest of the team and with no loss of functionality over the original CloudFormation template.

Discovering and implementing AWS Serverless best practices

Liberty wanted to start the patterns using industry-wide best practices before applying its own specific best practices for compliance requirements.

The ideal starting point for this was the AWS Well-Architected framework, specifically the Serverless Application Lens. The Serverless Lens is more focused and specific, and it provides guidance that speaks to developers more closely than the broader framework. Using Serverless Lens saved Liberty significant time investments on discovering and implementing those best practices across the patterns they had built, and it allowed for faster uptake.

Let’s take a look at one of the patterns in more detail.

The X-Ray tracer pattern

This pattern introduces the concept of distributed tracing: as workloads scale it can become more challenging to find anomalies and figure out where those anomalies occur within your application. This is not defined by the components used, but how the information is sent back information to AWS X-Ray. The pattern includes some common use cases with different data flows through AWS Serverless services.

Common use cases with different data flows through AWS Serverless services

After this pattern has been deployed, a service map will be generated in X-Ray showing the interconnectivity between the different resources deployed. (Your map may look slightly different than this one.)

Service map in X-Ray showing interconnectivity between different resources deployed

This pattern will provide you with an API Gateway endpoint you can use to trigger the flow and see the results in near real time in the X-Ray service map. The pattern also includes an SSL Certificate error in a Lambda function that connects to an external HTTP endpoint. When this happens, you can see the error in the X-Ray service map. You can then go into the trace details, which shows the specific error:

Trace details showing the specific error

Want to know more?

Liberty has deployed more than 1,000 applications into non-production environments using CDK Patterns, and more than 100 applications into production. This saved its developers time in deploying best-of-breed serverless applications for the company and has encouraged sharing across the entire organization.

All of these patterns are now available at CDK Patterns under the MIT License. There are currently 17 serverless patterns available in both Typescript and Python, and you can find CDK patterns by any of the five Well-Architected Pillars.

You can also reach out to Liberty IT about this project on Twitter as well as contribute either directly or on GitHub.

 

Announcing the New Version of the Well-Architected Framework

Post Syndicated from Rodney Lester original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/architecture/announcing-the-new-version-of-the-well-architected-framework/

“Nothing is constant except for change.” – Unknown

We are announcing the availability of a new version of the AWS Well-Architected Framework. We’ve made changes in response to your feedback, as well as to industry trends that are becoming widely adopted. We focused on four themes: removing perceived repetition, adding content areas to explicitly call out previously implied best practices, and revising best practices to provide clarity. These changes are intended to make it easier for you to understand and implement the best practices in your workloads. In addition to updating all the Well-Architected Pillar whitepapers to align more closely with these best practices, we have also improved the usability of the AWS Well-Architected Tool (AWS WA Tool).

History

This is our first Framework update since we released the AWS WA Tool in the AWS Management Console at re:Invent 2018. However, this is actually the eighth version of the Framework since it was introduced in 2012. The Framework consists of design principles, questions, and best practices that can be achieved in many different ways and are written in a manner that is much broader than a “checklist.” The best practices can be implemented using technology (AWS or third party) or by processes, which can also be automated. The Framework is written to allow you to explore if you are actually accomplishing each best practice, rather than simply giving you “yes” or “no” questions to indicate if you have performed a particular action. Evaluating your design, architecture, and implementation should not be a checklist but an evaluation of your progress toward the desired outcome.

We revise the Framework every year through a Kaizen process, where we collect the data about what worked for customers, what could be improved to provide clarity, and what should be added or removed. The first three versions were purely internal releases—used by our Solutions Architects, Professional Services Consultants, and Enterprise Support teams to have conversations with customers about building and operating the best cloud architectures.

With the fourth version in 2015, we published our guidance as a whitepaper. This increased its visibility and pointed out a blind spot: we had not documented the operational best practices required to achieve the other pillars’ operational aspects. The fifth version, released the following year, included a new pillar to address our omission, Operational Excellence. It was revised two more times, once in 2017, when we released the pillar-specific whitepapers and AWS Well-Architected Lenses, and again in 2018 when we launched the AWS WA Tool.

What’s new

We have added more topics to the Operational Excellence pillar. These specifically relate to the structure of your organization and how your culture supports those organizational choices. There are also additional best practices that we have identified and clarified in the existing areas of Prepare, Operate, and Evolve.

Operational Excellence

The Security pillar has one less question, which we accomplished by refining the best practices and removing duplication. The most changes are in identity and access management and how to operate your workloads securely.

Security pillar

The Reliability pillar has three more questions, based around your workload architecture. These have been covered as part of failure management in the Reliability Pillar whitepaper since 2017, but they have elicited enough discussion and action with customers that we now explicitly call them out.

Reliability pillar

The number of questions in the Performance Efficiency pillar did not change, but we clarified the best practices.

Performance efficiency

The Cost Optimization pillar has introduced a new section on Cloud Financial Management (CFM), which added a new question along with the best practices associated with it.

Cost optimization

These changes make the best practices clearer, remove duplication, and explicitly call out the new best practices that we have identified as an important part of having great cloud workloads. Expect to see additional blog posts explaining the changes to each pillar in more detail.

With this release, the Framework in now available in ten languages: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Brazilian Portuguese, Simplified Chinese, and Traditional Chinese.

Learn, measure, improve, & iterate

It’s a best practice to regularly review your workloads—even those that have not had major changes. Our internal standard is to perform reviews at least annually. We encourage you to review your existing workloads at least once this year, and to create milestones for your workloads as they evolve. Use the Framework to guide your design and architecture of new workloads, or of workloads that you are planning on moving to the cloud. The greatest successes have come from customers that take these best practices into consideration as early as possible in the process. In effective organizations, every best practice is considered and prioritized.

Continue to learn, measure, and improve your cloud workloads with the AWS Well-Architected Framework and use the AWS Well-Architected Tool to help document your progress to having Well-Architected workloads.

Learn more about the new version of Well-Architected and its pillars

What’s New in the Well-Architected Operational Excellence Pillar?

Post Syndicated from Brian Carlson original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/architecture/whats-new-in-the-well-architected-operational-excellence-pillar/

We recently released an updated version of the Operational Excellence pillar of the AWS Well-Architected Framework, which includes expanded guidance on operating model, and organizational culture, as well as some other refinements.

Gerald Weinberg, in his 1985 book, The Secrets of Consulting, defined The Second Law of Consulting as “No matter how it looks at first, it’s always a people problem.” I appreciate the humor and wit with which he approached software development.

Organizations, teams, and team members have always been a significant part of the Operational Excellence (OE) pillar. They now have their own dedicated section Organization, which includes guidance on Organization Priorities, Operating Model, and Organizational Culture.

How do you structure your organization to support your business outcomes?

Regardless of the choice of methodology—DevOps, ISO, ITIL, or something else—we all ultimately perform the same activities. The single most significant difference is in how we organize responsibilities and teams. Understanding the relationships between individuals and teams is essential to the smooth flow of work through your organization.

Starting from a simplified view of an organization limited to the engineering and operations of both applications and infrastructure (or platform), we explore the tradeoffs between common operating models.

Operational Excellence

Using variations on this 2 by 2 diagram, where responsibilities might span multiple quadrants, we discuss who does what, and the relationships between teams, governance, and decision-making. A well-defined set of responsibilities reduces the number of conflicting and redundant efforts. Business outcomes are easier to achieve when there is strong alignment and relationships between business, development, and operations teams.

Your teams might use different operating models, based on their capabilities and needs. You can be successful with any operating model, but some operating models have advantages, or are better suited, to your individual teams. Mapping who does what across your teams can provide significant insight to how they contribute or impact the flow of work. These insights can lead to the identification of opportunities for improvement as well as opportunities to further leverage the existing capabilities and innovation of your teams.

How does your organizational culture support your business outcomes?

The standards set by your leadership shape your organizational culture, so we begin by looking at Executive Sponsorship. Senior leadership sets expectations for the organization and evaluates success. When senior leadership is the sponsor, advocate, and driver for the adoption of best practices, as well as the evolution of the organization, both are more likely to happen. Our experience has shown that strong executive sponsorship is key to success.

“Diverse opinions are encouraged and sought within and across teams” is our top best practice in Organizational Culture. Leverage cross-organizational diversity to seek multiple unique perspectives. Use these perspectives to increase innovation, challenge your assumptions, and reduce the risk of confirmation bias. Grow inclusion, diversity, and accessibility within your teams to gain beneficial perspectives. These actions call back to the strong alignment and relationships across teams that we discussed with operating models. When you engage diverse perspectives and experiences, the insights you gain are more likely to identify new challenges, new opportunities, and new solutions.

While small in scope, other changes to OE represent significant areas for improvement.

We start out with the subtle addition of “Evaluate governance requirements” alongside the existing “Evaluate compliance requirements.” With compliance, we focus is on the obligations that come from outside your organization, for example the regulatory requirements for your industry. In the case of governance, we are focusing on the requirements that your organization applies to you and your workload.

“Use a process for root cause analysis” has been renamed “Perform post-incident analysis” and moved to “How do you evolve operations?” This change makes it part of continual improvement, where it makes more sense based on the timing of the activity and it gets more emphasis. Regardless of what you call it, if your goal is to identify the contributing factors and mitigate or prevent recurrence, you are doing the right thing.

The final addition to OE is “Perform Knowledge Management.” It’s a difficult challenge that can have simple solutions. Your team members need to be able to discover the information that they are looking for, access it, and identify that it’s current and complete. It’s much better to capture institutional knowledge now, so that the burden carried by key team members can be shared. If a key team member is tragically struck by a winning lottery ticket and forced to become a person of leisure, what will you do? Perhaps right now is the best time to get started on a knowledge management effort.

This update to the Operational Excellence pillar of the AWS Well-Architected Framework gives you and your teams the tools and information you need to improve your operations and governance. Together with the AWS Well-Architected Tool, use them to continue to learn, measure, and improve your cloud workloads.

Special thanks to everyone across the AWS operations community who contributed their diverse perspectives and experiences to improving the Operational Excellence pillar.

Learn more about the new version of Well-Architected and its pillars

What’s New in the Well-Architected Reliability Pillar?

Post Syndicated from Seth Eliot original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/architecture/whats-new-in-the-well-architected-reliability-pillar/

The new version of the Reliability pillar for AWS Well-Architected includes expanded content across all areas of reliability. Guidance on distributed system architecture has been reorganized and expanded, and new best practices have been added as part of the Well-Architected Review. There is a sharper focus on chaos engineering with more explanation and examples. We’ve added more details on using fault isolation to protect your workloads using Availability Zones, and beyond.

In the AWS Well-Architected Tool, new reliability best practices have been added, and existing ones updated. We have completely updated the Reliability Pillar whitepaper to align to the questions and best practices found in the tool. Additionally, we added the latest guidance on implementing the best practices using the newest AWS resources and partner technologies, such as AWS Transit Gateway, AWS Service Quotas, and CloudEndure Disaster Recovery.

The whitepaper provides clearer definitions to help you better understand the relationships among reliability, resiliency, and availability. The focus remains on resiliency, and how to design this into your workloads so that they are able to recover from infrastructure or service disruptions, dynamically acquire computing resources to meet demand, and mitigate disruptions, such as misconfigurations or transient network issues.

Launched at re:Invent 2019, Amazon Builders’ Library shares in-depth articles on how Amazon builds and runs resilient workloads. Our updated Reliability pillar draws extensively on this information, incorporating it across multiple best practices, and linking back to specific Amazon Builders’ Library articles. The AWS Well-Architected hands-on reliability labs now include Implementing Health Checks and Managing Dependencies to improve Reliability, which lets you exercise the practices demonstrated in the library’s Implementing health checks article firsthand. We expanded the suite of Well-Architected Reliability labs with new labs on data backup, data replication, and automated infrastructure deployment.

Implementing Health Checks and Managing Dependencies to Improve Reliability-2

The new Implementing Health Checks and Managing Dependencies to Improve Reliability lab shows you how to implement practices to detect dependency failures and remain resilient despite them.

Prior to this version of the Reliability pillar, we had identified three best practice areas: Foundations, Change Management, and Failure Management. In this new version, we added a fourth area:

  • Workload Architecture: Specific patterns to follow as you design and implement software architecture for your distributed systems.

This new area covers best practices related to service-oriented architecture, microservices architectures, and distributed systems. We also added these to the AWS Well-Architected Tool, so that you can review your workloads and understand if they are using these best architectural practices. Also the whitepaper content for these has been expanded, and draws on Amazon Builders’ Library articles, including Challenges with distributed systems and Timeouts, retries, and backoff with jitter.

The previous version helped you to understand the important role of Availability Zones in a reliable architecture. In the new version, we expanded on this by adding more detail on using bulkhead architectures, such as cell-based architecture (used across AWS), where each cell is a complete, independent instance of the service.

Best practices on how you implement change have always been an important part of the Reliability pillar. We now have more practical guidance on reliable deployment, including runbooks and pipeline tests. The new best practice on immutable infrastructure expands on our previous guidance on deployment automation using canary deployment or blue/green deployment.

We’ve also expanded coverage of Chaos Engineering. You can’t consider your workload to be resilient until you hypothesize how your workload will react to failures, inject those failures to test your design, and then compare your hypothesis to the testing results. While Chaos Monkey popularized the constructive use of chaos in 2010, Amazon has been purposely injecting failures since the early 2000s to increase resiliency and ensure readiness under the most adverse of circumstance. This history and experience are all the more applicable today in the cloud, where you can both design for recovery and test those designs. This is an often-overlooked best practice, but our most successful resiliency customers recognize it as a necessary and powerful tool.

This update to the Reliability pillar of the AWS Well-Architected Framework gives you and your teams the tools and information you need to understand your workload reliability. Together with the AWS Well-Architected Tool, start creating a plan today and continue to learn, measure, and improve your cloud workloads.

A huge thank you to everyone who gives us feedback on the tool and whitepapers, and a special thank you to Stephen Beck, Adrian Hornsby, Mahanth Jayadeva, Krupakar Pasupuleti, Jon Steele, and Jon Wright for their help with this update.

Learn more about the new version of Well-Architected and its pillars