Scaling Puppet for Donuts

In the last year we’ve had a fair number of challenges within NetOps, especially with our config management of choice which is Puppet. Not only did we have a big piece of work that involved taking the giant leap from Puppet 2.x to 3.x, we also faced some architectural and performance challenges.

Whilst the upgrade was successful, we continued to have an architecture that was vertically scaled, and worse still we had CA signing authority host that had become a snowflake due to manual intervention during our upgrade. The architecture issues then really started to become apparent when we started hitting around 600 client nodes.

Now, as the old saying goes, if you have a problem, and no one else can help, maybe you should open…. a JIRA! So we did and it included the promise of donuts to the person willing to do the following:

1: Puppetise all our puppet infrastructure – inception FTW.
2: Add a level of redundancy and resilience to our Puppet CA signing authority.
3: Get us moved to the latest version of PuppetDB.
4: Make Puppet Dashboard better somehow.
5: Do it all on Debian Wheezy because Debian Squeeze support expires soon.
6: Seamlessly move to the new infrastructure.

What happened next was three weeks of work creating new modules in our Puppet git repo that could sit alongside our current configuration and be ready for the proverbial flip of the switch at the appropriate moment.

After a quick bit of research it became clear that the best approach to take was to separate out our CA signing authority host from our Puppet masters that would serve the vast majority of requests. This would allow us to make the CA resilient, which we achieved through bi-directional syncing of the signed certificates between our primary and failover CA.

Separation also meant that our “worker” cluster could be horizontally scaled on demand, and we estimate we can easily accommodate 2000 client nodes with our new set-up, which looks like this:


You may be thinking at this point that PuppetDB is an anomaly because it’s not redundant. However, we took the view that as the reporting data was transient and could potentially change with every puppet run on our agent nodes, we could quite happily take the hit on losing it (temporarily).

Yes we would have to rebuild it, but the data would repopulate once back online. In order to cope with a PuppetDB failure we enabled the “soft_write_failure” option on our Puppet masters, i.e. CA and Worker hosts. This meant that they would still serve in the event of a PuppetDB outage.

Finally, we decided to move away from using the official Puppet Dashboard – which relied on reports and local sql storage – and used Puppetboard Github project instead as it talks directly to PuppetDB. Puppetboard was written using the Flask (Python) web framework and we run it internally fronted with Facebook’s Tornado web server

Leave a Reply