summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/doc/administration/reference_architectures/index.md
blob: 3fcd6d7ae4eef5252bf41db36fce5d0651aed6b2 (plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
---
type: reference, concepts
stage: Enablement
group: Distribution
info: To determine the technical writer assigned to the Stage/Group associated with this page, see https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/engineering/ux/technical-writing/#assignments
---

# Reference architectures **(FREE SELF)**

You can set up GitLab on a single server or scale it up to serve many users.
This page details the recommended Reference Architectures that were built and
verified by the GitLab Quality and Support teams.

Below is a chart representing each architecture tier and the number of users
they can handle. As your number of users grow with time, it's recommended that
you scale GitLab accordingly.

![Reference Architectures](img/reference-architectures.png)
<!-- Internal link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1obYP4fLKkVVDOljaI3-ozhmCiPtEeMblbBKkf2OADKs/edit#gid=1403207183 -->

Testing on these reference architectures was performed with the
[GitLab Performance Tool](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/quality/performance)
at specific coded workloads, and the throughputs used for testing were
calculated based on sample customer data. Select the
[reference architecture](#available-reference-architectures) that matches your scale.

Each endpoint type is tested with the following number of requests per second (RPS)
per 1,000 users:

- API: 20 RPS
- Web: 2 RPS
- Git (Pull): 2 RPS
- Git (Push): 0.4 RPS (rounded to nearest integer)

For GitLab instances with less than 2,000 users, it's recommended that you use
the [default setup](#automated-backups) by
[installing GitLab](../../install/index.md) on a single machine to minimize
maintenance and resource costs.

If your organization has more than 2,000 users, the recommendation is to scale the
GitLab components to multiple machine nodes. The machine nodes are grouped by
components. The addition of these nodes increases the performance and
scalability of to your GitLab instance.

When scaling GitLab, there are several factors to consider:

- Multiple application nodes to handle frontend traffic.
- A load balancer is added in front to distribute traffic across the application nodes.
- The application nodes connects to a shared file server and PostgreSQL and Redis services on the backend.

NOTE:
Depending on your workflow, the following recommended reference architectures
may need to be adapted accordingly. Your workload is influenced by factors
including how active your users are, how much automation you use, mirroring,
and repository/change size. Additionally the displayed memory values are
provided by [GCP machine types](https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/machine-types).
For different cloud vendors, attempt to select options that best match the
provided architecture.

## Available reference architectures

The following reference architectures are available.

### GitLab package (Omnibus)

- [Up to 1,000 users](1k_users.md)
- [Up to 2,000 users](2k_users.md)
- [Up to 3,000 users](3k_users.md)
- [Up to 5,000 users](5k_users.md)
- [Up to 10,000 users](10k_users.md)
- [Up to 25,000 users](25k_users.md)
- [Up to 50,000 users](50k_users.md)

### Cloud native hybrid

The following Cloud Native Hybrid reference architectures, where select recommended components can be run in Kubernetes, are available:

- [Up to 2,000 users](2k_users.md#cloud-native-hybrid-reference-architecture-with-helm-charts-alternative)
- [Up to 3,000 users](3k_users.md#cloud-native-hybrid-reference-architecture-with-helm-charts-alternative)
- [Up to 5,000 users](5k_users.md#cloud-native-hybrid-reference-architecture-with-helm-charts-alternative)
- [Up to 10,000 users](10k_users.md#cloud-native-hybrid-reference-architecture-with-helm-charts-alternative)
- [Up to 25,000 users](25k_users.md#cloud-native-hybrid-reference-architecture-with-helm-charts-alternative)
- [Up to 50,000 users](50k_users.md#cloud-native-hybrid-reference-architecture-with-helm-charts-alternative)

A GitLab [Premium or Ultimate](https://about.gitlab.com/pricing/#self-managed) license is required
to get assistance from Support with troubleshooting the [2,000 users](2k_users.md)
and higher reference architectures.
[Read more about our definition of scaled architectures](https://about.gitlab.com/support/#definition-of-scaled-architecture).

### Validation and test results

The [Quality Engineering - Enablement team](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/engineering/quality/quality-engineering/) does regular smoke and performance tests for the reference architectures to ensure they remain compliant.

- Testing occurs against all reference architectures and cloud providers in an automated and ad-hoc fashion. This is done by two tools:
  - The [GitLab Environment Toolkit](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-environment-toolkit) for building the environments.
  - The [GitLab Performance Tool](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/quality/performance) for performance testing.
- Network latency on the test environments between components on all Cloud Providers were measured at <5ms. Note that this is shared as an observation and not as an implicit recommendation.
- We aim to have a "test smart" approach where architectures tested have a good range that can also apply to others. Testing focuses on 10k Omnibus on GCP as the testing has shown this is a good bellwether for the other architectures and cloud providers as well as Cloud Native Hybrids.
- Testing is done publicly and all results are shared.
- For more information about performance testing at GitLab, read [how our QA team leverages GitLab’s performance testing tool (and you can too)](https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2020/02/18/how-were-building-up-performance-testing-of-gitlab/).

The following table details the testing done against the reference architectures along with the frequency and results. Additional testing is continuously evaluated, and the table is updated accordingly.

<style>
table.test-coverage td {
    border-top: 1px solid #dbdbdb;
    border-left: 1px solid #dbdbdb;
    border-right: 1px solid #dbdbdb;
    border-bottom: 1px solid #dbdbdb;
}

table.test-coverage th {
    border-top: 1px solid #dbdbdb;
    border-left: 1px solid #dbdbdb;
    border-right: 1px solid #dbdbdb;
    border-bottom: 1px solid #dbdbdb;
}
</style>

<table class="test-coverage">
  <col>
  <colgroup span="2"></colgroup>
  <colgroup span="2"></colgroup>
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2">Reference<br/>Architecture</th>
    <th style="text-align: center" colspan="2" scope="colgroup">GCP (* also proxy for Bare-Metal)</th>
    <th style="text-align: center" colspan="2" scope="colgroup">AWS</th>
    <th style="text-align: center" colspan="2" scope="colgroup">Azure</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th scope="col">Omnibus</th>
    <th scope="col">Cloud Native Hybrid</th>
    <th scope="col">Omnibus</th>
    <th scope="col">Cloud Native Hybrid</th>
    <th scope="col">Omnibus</th>
  </tr>
    <tr>
    <th scope="row">1k</th>
    <td><a href="https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/quality/performance/-/wikis/Benchmarks/Latest/1k">Daily</a> (to be moved to Weekly)</td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th scope="row">2k</th>
    <td><a href="https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/quality/performance/-/wikis/Benchmarks/Latest/2k">Daily</a> (to be moved to Weekly)</td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th scope="row">3k</th>
    <td><a href="https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/quality/performance/-/wikis/Benchmarks/Latest/3k">Weekly</a></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th scope="row">5k</th>
    <td><a href="https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/quality/performance/-/wikis/Benchmarks/Latest/5k">Weekly</a></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th scope="row">10k</th>
    <td><a href="https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/quality/performance/-/wikis/Benchmarks/Latest/10k">Daily</a></td>
    <td><a href="https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/quality/performance/-/wikis/Past-Results/10k-Cloud-Native-Hybrid">Ad-Hoc</a></td>
    <td><a href="https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/quality/performance/-/wikis/Past-Results/10k">Ad-Hoc (inc Cloud Services)</a></td>
    <td><a href="https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/quality/performance/-/wikis/Past-Results/10k-Cloud-Native-Hybrid">Ad-Hoc</a></td>
    <td><a href="https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/quality/performance/-/wikis/Past-Results/10k">Ad-Hoc</a></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th scope="row">25k</th>
    <td><a href="https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/quality/performance/-/wikis/Benchmarks/Latest/25k">Weekly</a></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
    <td><a href="https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/quality/performance/-/wikis/Past-Results/25k">Ad-Hoc</a></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th scope="row">50k</th>
    <td><a href="https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/quality/performance/-/wikis/Benchmarks/Latest/50k">Weekly</a></td>
    <td></td>
    <td><a href="https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/quality/performance/-/wikis/Past-Results/50k">Ad-Hoc (inc Cloud Services)</a></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
  </tr>
</table>

The Standard Reference Architectures are designed to be platform agnostic, with everything being run on VMs via [Omnibus GitLab](https://docs.gitlab.com/omnibus/). While testing occurs primarily on GCP, ad-hoc testing has shown that they perform similarly on equivalently specced hardware on other Cloud Providers or if run on premises (bare-metal).

### Cost to run

<table class="test-coverage">
  <col>
  <colgroup span="2"></colgroup>
  <colgroup span="2"></colgroup>
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2">Reference<br/>Architecture</th>
    <th style="text-align: center" colspan="2" scope="colgroup">GCP</th>
    <th style="text-align: center" colspan="2" scope="colgroup">AWS</th>
    <th style="text-align: center" colspan="2" scope="colgroup">Azure</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th scope="col">Omnibus</th>
    <th scope="col">Cloud Native Hybrid</th>
    <th scope="col">Omnibus</th>
    <th scope="col">Cloud Native Hybrid</th>
    <th scope="col">Omnibus</th>
  </tr>
    <tr>
    <th scope="row">1k</th>
    <td><a href="https://cloud.google.com/products/calculator#id=a6d6a94a-c7dc-4c22-85c4-7c5747f272ed">Calculated cost</a></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th scope="row">2k</th>
    <td><a href="https://cloud.google.com/products/calculator#id=84d11491-d72a-493c-a16e-650931faa658">Calculated cost</a></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th scope="row">3k</th>
    <td><a href="https://cloud.google.com/products/calculator/#id=ac4838e6-9c40-4a36-ac43-6d1bc1843e08">Calculated cost</a></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th scope="row">5k</th>
    <td><a href="https://cloud.google.com/products/calculator/#id=8742e8ea-c08f-4e0a-b058-02f3a1c38a2f">Calculated cost</a></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th scope="row">10k</th>
    <td><a href="https://cloud.google.com/products/calculator#id=e77713f6-dc0b-4bb3-bcef-cea904ac8efd">Calculated cost</a></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th scope="row">25k</th>
    <td><a href="https://cloud.google.com/products/calculator#id=925386e1-c01c-4c0a-8d7d-ebde1824b7b0">Calculated cost</a></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th scope="row">50k</th>
    <td><a href="https://cloud.google.com/products/calculator/#id=8006396b-88ee-40cd-a1c8-77cdefa4d3c8">Calculated cost</a></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
  </tr>
</table>

### Recommended cloud providers and services

NOTE:
The following lists are non exhaustive. Generally, other cloud providers not listed
here will likely work with the same specs, but this hasn't been validated.
Additionally, when it comes to other cloud provider services not listed here,
it's advised to be cautious as each implementation can be notably different
and should be tested thoroughly before production use.

Through testing and real life usage, the Reference Architectures are validated and supported on the following cloud providers:

<table>
<thead>
  <tr>
    <th>Reference Architecture</th>
    <th>GCP</th>
    <th>AWS</th>
    <th>Azure</th>
    <th>Bare Metal</th>
  </tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
  <tr>
    <td>Omnibus</td>
    <td>✅</td>
    <td>✅</td>
    <td>✅</td>
    <td>✅</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Cloud Native Hybrid</td>
    <td>✅</td>
    <td>✅</td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
  </tr>
</tbody>
</table>

Additionally, the following cloud provider services are validated and supported for use as part of the Reference Architectures:

<table>
<thead>
  <tr>
    <th>Cloud Service</th>
    <th>GCP</th>
    <th>AWS</th>
    <th>Bare Metal</th>
  </tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
  <tr>
    <td>Object Storage</td>
    <td>✅ &nbsp; <a href="https://cloud.google.com/storage" target="_blank">Cloud Storage</a></td>
    <td>✅ &nbsp; <a href="https://aws.amazon.com/s3/" target="_blank">S3</a></td>
    <td>✅ &nbsp; <a href="https://min.io/" target="_blank">MinIO</a></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Database</td>
    <td>✅ &nbsp; <a href="https://cloud.google.com/sql" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Cloud SQL</a></td>
    <td>✅ &nbsp; <a href="https://aws.amazon.com/rds/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">RDS</a></td>
    <td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Redis</td>
    <td></td>
    <td>✅ &nbsp; <a href="https://aws.amazon.com/elasticache/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Elasticache</a></td>
    <td></td>
  </tr>
</tbody>
</table>

The following specific cloud provider services have been found to have issues in terms of either functionality or performance. As such, they either have caveats that should be considered or are not recommended:

- [Azure Blob Storage](https://azure.microsoft.com/en-gb/services/storage/blobs/) has been found to have performance limits that can impact production use at certain times. For larger Reference Architectures the service may not be sufficient for production use and an alternative is recommended for use instead.
- [Azure Database for PostgreSQL Server](https://azure.microsoft.com/en-gb/services/postgresql/#overview) (Single / Flexible) is not recommended for use due to notable performance issues or missing functionality.
- [AWS Aurora Database](https://aws.amazon.com/rds/aurora) is not recommended due to compatibility issues.

NOTE:
As a general rule we unfortunately don't recommend Azure Services at this time.
If required, we advise thorough testing is done at your intended scale
over a sustained period to validate if the service is suitable.

## Availability Components

GitLab comes with the following components for your use, listed from least to
most complex:

- [Automated backups](#automated-backups)
- [Traffic load balancer](#traffic-load-balancer)
- [Zero downtime updates](#zero-downtime-updates)
- [Automated database failover](#automated-database-failover)
- [Instance level replication with GitLab Geo](#instance-level-replication-with-gitlab-geo)

As you implement these components, begin with a single server and then do
backups. Only after completing the first server should you proceed to the next.

Also, not implementing extra servers for GitLab doesn't necessarily mean that you'll have
more downtime. Depending on your needs and experience level, single servers can
have more actual perceived uptime for your users.

### Automated backups

> - Level of complexity: **Low**
> - Required domain knowledge: PostgreSQL, GitLab configurations, Git

This solution is appropriate for many teams that have the default GitLab installation.
With automatic backups of the GitLab repositories, configuration, and the database,
this can be an optimal solution if you don't have strict requirements.
[Automated backups](../../raketasks/backup_restore.md#configuring-cron-to-make-daily-backups)
is the least complex to setup. This provides a point-in-time recovery of a predetermined schedule.

### Traffic load balancer **(PREMIUM SELF)**

> - Level of complexity: **Medium**
> - Required domain knowledge: HAProxy, shared storage, distributed systems

This requires separating out GitLab into multiple application nodes with an added
[load balancer](../load_balancer.md). The load balancer will distribute traffic
across GitLab application nodes. Meanwhile, each application node connects to a
shared file server and database systems on the back end. This way, if one of the
application servers fails, the workflow is not interrupted.
[HAProxy](https://www.haproxy.org/) is recommended as the load balancer.

With this added component you have a number of advantages compared
to the default installation:

- Increase the number of users.
- Enable zero-downtime upgrades.
- Increase availability.

For more details on how to configure a traffic load balancer with GitLab, you can refer
to any of the [available reference architectures](#available-reference-architectures) with more than 1,000 users.

### Zero downtime updates **(PREMIUM SELF)**

> - Level of complexity: **Medium**
> - Required domain knowledge: PostgreSQL, HAProxy, shared storage, distributed systems

GitLab supports [zero-downtime upgrades](../../update/zero_downtime.md).
Single GitLab nodes can be updated with only a [few minutes of downtime](../../update/zero_downtime.md#single-node-deployment).
To avoid this, we recommend to separate GitLab into several application nodes.
As long as at least one of each component is online and capable of handling the instance's usage load, your team's productivity will not be interrupted during the update.

### Automated database failover **(PREMIUM SELF)**

> - Level of complexity: **High**
> - Required domain knowledge: PgBouncer, Patroni, shared storage, distributed systems

By adding automatic failover for database systems, you can enable higher uptime
with additional database nodes. This extends the default database with
cluster management and failover policies.
[PgBouncer in conjunction with Patroni](../postgresql/replication_and_failover.md)
is recommended.

### Instance level replication with GitLab Geo **(PREMIUM SELF)**

> - Level of complexity: **Very High**
> - Required domain knowledge: Storage replication

[GitLab Geo](../geo/index.md) allows you to replicate your GitLab
instance to other geographical locations as a read-only fully operational instance
that can also be promoted in case of disaster.

## Deviating from the suggested reference architectures

As a general guideline, the further away you move from the Reference Architectures,
the harder it will be get support for it. With any deviation, you're introducing
a layer of complexity that will add challenges to finding out where potential
issues might lie.

The reference architectures use the official GitLab Linux packages (Omnibus
GitLab) or [Helm Charts](https://docs.gitlab.com/charts/) to install and configure the various components. The components are
installed on separate machines (virtualized or bare metal), with machine hardware
requirements listed in the "Configuration" column and equivalent VM standard sizes listed
in GCP/AWS/Azure columns of each [available reference architecture](#available-reference-architectures).

Running components on Docker (including Compose) with the same specs should be fine, as Docker is well known in terms of support.
However, it is still an additional layer and may still add some support complexities, such as not being able to run `strace` easily in containers.

Other technologies, like [Docker swarm](https://docs.docker.com/engine/swarm/)
are not officially supported, but can be implemented at your own risk. In that
case, GitLab Support will not be able to help you.

## Supported modifications for lower user count HA reference architectures

The reference architectures for user counts [3,000](3k_users.md) and up support High Availability (HA).

In the specific case you have the requirement to achieve HA but have a lower user count, select modifications to the [3,000 user](3k_users.md) architecture are supported.

For more details, [refer to this section in the architecture's documentation](3k_users.md#supported-modifications-for-lower-user-counts-ha).