-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
- Loading branch information
Showing
3 changed files
with
296 additions
and
10 deletions.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,287 @@ | ||
# Deployment Strategy Documentation | ||
|
||
## Table of Contents | ||
- [Overview](#overview) | ||
- [AWS Deployment Strategy](#aws-deployment-strategy) | ||
- [Self-Hosted Deployment Strategy](#self-hosted-deployment-strategy) | ||
- [Recommended Approaches](#recommended-approaches) | ||
|
||
## Overview | ||
|
||
This document outlines our deployment strategies for both AWS and self-hosted environments. Each approach is designed to maximize reliability, minimize downtime, and ensure consistent deployments across environments. | ||
|
||
## AWS Deployment Strategy | ||
|
||
### 1. Infrastructure as Code (IaC) | ||
- Use AWS CloudFormation or Terraform to manage infrastructure | ||
- Version control all infrastructure definitions | ||
- Maintain separate configurations for staging and production | ||
|
||
### 2. Containerization | ||
- Docker containers for application packaging | ||
- Amazon Elastic Container Registry (ECR) for container storage | ||
- Amazon Elastic Container Service (ECS) or Elastic Kubernetes Service (EKS) for orchestration | ||
|
||
### 3. CI/CD Pipeline with GitHub Actions | ||
```mermaid | ||
graph LR | ||
A[Code Push] --> B[GitHub Actions] | ||
B --> C[Build & Test] | ||
C --> D[Create & Push Container] | ||
D --> E[Deploy] | ||
``` | ||
|
||
#### Pipeline Configuration | ||
```yaml | ||
# .github/workflows/deploy.yml | ||
name: Deploy | ||
on: | ||
push: | ||
branches: [main] | ||
pull_request: | ||
branches: [main] | ||
|
||
jobs: | ||
deploy: | ||
runs-on: ubuntu-latest | ||
steps: | ||
- uses: actions/checkout@v3 | ||
- name: Configure AWS credentials | ||
uses: aws-actions/configure-aws-credentials@v1 | ||
- name: Build and test | ||
run: | | ||
make test | ||
make build | ||
- name: Push to ECR | ||
run: | | ||
aws ecr get-login-password --region ${{ secrets.AWS_REGION }} | docker login --username AWS --password-stdin ${{ secrets.ECR_REGISTRY }} | ||
docker push ${{ secrets.ECR_REGISTRY }}/app:${{ github.sha }} | ||
- name: Deploy to ECS | ||
run: | | ||
aws ecs update-service --cluster production --service app --force-new-deployment | ||
``` | ||
#### Pipeline Steps: | ||
1. Code push triggers GitHub Actions workflow | ||
2. Run tests and security scans in GitHub-hosted runner | ||
3. Build Docker image | ||
4. Push to ECR using AWS credentials | ||
5. Update ECS task definition/K8s deployment | ||
6. Monitor deployment status | ||
### 4. Blue-Green Deployment | ||
- Maintain two identical production environments | ||
- Route traffic using Route 53 or Application Load Balancer | ||
- Zero-downtime deployments | ||
- Easy rollback capability | ||
## Self-Hosted Deployment Strategy | ||
### 1. Infrastructure Setup | ||
- Nginx as reverse proxy | ||
- Docker and Docker Compose for containerization | ||
- GitLab Runner or Jenkins for CI/CD | ||
### 2. Deployment Process with GitHub Actions | ||
```mermaid | ||
graph LR | ||
A[Git Push] --> B[GitHub Actions] | ||
B --> C[Build & Test] | ||
C --> D[Docker Build] | ||
D --> E[Deploy via SSH] | ||
``` | ||
|
||
#### GitHub Actions Configuration | ||
```yaml | ||
# .github/workflows/self-hosted.yml | ||
name: Deploy to Self-Hosted | ||
on: | ||
push: | ||
branches: [main] | ||
|
||
jobs: | ||
deploy: | ||
runs-on: ubuntu-latest | ||
steps: | ||
- uses: actions/checkout@v3 | ||
- name: Build and test | ||
run: | | ||
make test | ||
make build | ||
- name: Deploy to server | ||
uses: appleboy/ssh-action@master | ||
with: | ||
host: ${{ secrets.SERVER_HOST }} | ||
username: ${{ secrets.SERVER_USER }} | ||
key: ${{ secrets.SSH_PRIVATE_KEY }} | ||
script: | | ||
cd /app | ||
docker-compose pull | ||
docker-compose up -d | ||
``` | ||
#### Steps: | ||
1. Automated deployment via GitHub Actions | ||
2. SSH-based deployment using secure keys | ||
3. Docker Compose for service orchestration | ||
4. Health checks before switching traffic | ||
5. Automated backup before deployment | ||
### 3. Rolling Updates | ||
- Update services one at a time | ||
- Health check verification | ||
- Automatic rollback on failure | ||
## Recommended Approaches | ||
### For AWS (Recommended) | ||
We recommend the following strategy for AWS deployments: | ||
1. **ECS with Fargate** | ||
- Serverless container management | ||
- Automatic scaling | ||
- Cost-effective for variable loads | ||
- Simplified infrastructure management | ||
2. **Blue-Green Deployment** | ||
- Zero downtime deployments | ||
- Simple rollback process | ||
- Production-grade reliability | ||
### For Self-Hosted (Recommended) | ||
For self-hosted environments, we recommend: | ||
1. **Docker Compose with Traefik** | ||
- Easy service orchestration | ||
- Automatic SSL management | ||
- Simple reverse proxy configuration | ||
- Built-in load balancing | ||
2. **Rolling Updates with Health Checks** | ||
- Minimal downtime | ||
- Controlled deployment process | ||
- Automatic failure detection | ||
## Security Considerations | ||
### AWS | ||
- Use AWS Secrets Manager for sensitive data | ||
- Implement IAM roles with least privilege | ||
- Enable AWS GuardDuty for threat detection | ||
- Regular security audits | ||
### Self-Hosted | ||
- Use Vault for secrets management | ||
- Implement fail2ban for intrusion prevention | ||
- Regular security updates | ||
- Automated backup system | ||
## Monitoring and Logging | ||
### AWS | ||
- CloudWatch for logs and metrics | ||
- X-Ray for distributed tracing | ||
- SNS for alerts and notifications | ||
### Self-Hosted | ||
- Prometheus for metrics | ||
- Grafana for visualization | ||
- ELK Stack for log management | ||
## Disaster Recovery | ||
### AWS | ||
- Multi-region backup strategy | ||
- Automated snapshots | ||
- Documented recovery procedures | ||
### Self-Hosted | ||
- Regular backups to off-site storage | ||
- Documented recovery procedures | ||
- Regular recovery testing | ||
## Deployment Solutions Comparison | ||
### AWS Deployment | ||
#### Pros | ||
- **Scalability**: Automatic scaling capabilities with ECS/EKS | ||
- **Reliability**: Built-in high availability across availability zones | ||
- **Managed Services**: Less operational overhead with managed services | ||
- **Global Reach**: Easy deployment across multiple regions | ||
- **Security**: Built-in security features and compliance certifications | ||
- **Integration**: Seamless integration with other AWS services | ||
- **Monitoring**: Comprehensive monitoring with CloudWatch | ||
- **Backup**: Automated backup and disaster recovery options | ||
#### Cons | ||
- **Cost**: Can be expensive for high-traffic applications | ||
- **Vendor Lock-in**: Dependency on AWS ecosystem | ||
- **Complexity**: Learning curve for AWS services | ||
- **Cost Prediction**: Difficult to predict exact costs | ||
- **Data Transfer**: Expensive egress costs between regions | ||
- **Configuration**: Complex configuration for some services | ||
### Self-Hosted Deployment | ||
#### Pros | ||
- **Cost Control**: Predictable and potentially lower costs | ||
- **Full Control**: Complete control over infrastructure | ||
- **Data Privacy**: Direct control over data location and handling | ||
- **Customization**: Flexibility to customize every aspect | ||
- **No Vendor Lock-in**: Freedom to change providers | ||
- **Performance**: Ability to optimize for specific use cases | ||
- **Simple Architecture**: Often simpler to understand and debug | ||
#### Cons | ||
- **Maintenance**: Higher operational overhead | ||
- **Scaling**: Manual scaling requires more effort | ||
- **Reliability**: Need to implement HA solutions manually | ||
- **Security**: Responsibility for all security aspects | ||
- **Updates**: Manual system updates and patches | ||
- **Monitoring**: Need to set up monitoring infrastructure | ||
- **Expertise**: Requires more in-house expertise | ||
### Decision Matrix | ||
| Factor | AWS | Self-Hosted | | ||
|-----------------|-------------------------|------------------------| | ||
| Initial Cost | Low | Medium to High | | ||
| Running Cost | High for scale | Predictable | | ||
| Scalability | Excellent | Manual | | ||
| Maintenance | Low | High | | ||
| Control | Limited | Full | | ||
| Security | Built-in | Manual Setup | | ||
| Time to Deploy | Fast | Medium | | ||
| Customization | Limited | Unlimited | | ||
| Reliability | Very High | Depends on Setup | | ||
### When to Choose AWS | ||
- Startups needing quick deployment | ||
- Projects requiring rapid scaling | ||
- Applications with variable load | ||
- Teams with limited DevOps resources | ||
- Compliance-heavy applications | ||
- Global application deployment | ||
### When to Choose Self-Hosted | ||
- Cost-sensitive long-term projects | ||
- Applications with stable, predictable load | ||
- Projects requiring full infrastructure control | ||
- Data privacy-critical applications | ||
- Teams with strong DevOps expertise | ||
- Applications with specific hardware requirements | ||
## Conclusion | ||
For most projects, we strongly recommend the AWS deployment strategy using ECS/Fargate with blue-green deployment. This approach provides: | ||
- Minimal operational overhead | ||
- Excellent scalability | ||
- Built-in high availability | ||
- Comprehensive monitoring | ||
- Simplified disaster recovery | ||
However, for projects with specific requirements or budget constraints, our self-hosted strategy using Docker Compose and Traefik provides a robust and cost-effective alternative. | ||
Remember to regularly review and update these deployment strategies as new tools and best practices emerge. |
This file was deleted.
Oops, something went wrong.