This blog post details a method for securely deploying applications to on-premises IIS servers from Azure Pipelines without exposing credentials. The author leverages a self-hosted agent running on the target server, combined with a pre-configured deployment group. Instead of storing sensitive information directly in the pipeline, the approach uses Azure Key Vault to securely store the application pool password. The pipeline then retrieves this password during the deployment process and utilizes it with the powershell task in Azure Pipelines to update the application pool, ensuring credentials are not exposed in plain text within the pipeline or agent's environment. This setup enables automated deployments while mitigating the security risks associated with managing credentials for on-premises deployments.
This blog post details setting up a bare-metal Kubernetes cluster on NixOS with Nvidia GPU support, focusing on simplicity and declarative configuration. It leverages NixOS's package management for consistent deployments across nodes and uses the toolkit's modularity to manage complex dependencies like CUDA drivers and container toolkits. The author emphasizes using separate NixOS modules for different cluster components—Kubernetes, GPU drivers, and container runtimes—allowing for easier maintenance and upgrades. The post guides readers through configuring the systemd unit for the Nvidia container toolkit, setting up the necessary kernel modules, and ensuring proper access for Kubernetes to the GPUs. Finally, it demonstrates deploying a GPU-enabled pod as a verification step.
Hacker News users discussed various aspects of running Nvidia GPUs on a bare-metal NixOS Kubernetes cluster. Some questioned the necessity of NixOS for this setup, suggesting that its complexity might outweigh its benefits, especially for smaller clusters. Others countered that NixOS provides crucial advantages for reproducible deployments and managing driver dependencies, particularly valuable in research and multi-node GPU environments. Commenters also explored alternatives like using Ansible for provisioning and debated the performance impact of virtualization. A few users shared their personal experiences, highlighting both successes and challenges with similar setups, including issues with specific GPU models and kernel versions. Several commenters expressed interest in the author's approach to network configuration and storage management, but the author didn't elaborate on these aspects in the original post.
Yoke aims to simplify Kubernetes deployments by managing infrastructure as code within the Kubernetes cluster itself. It leverages a GitOps approach, using a dedicated controller to synchronize the desired state from a Git repository directly to the cluster. This eliminates the external dependencies and complex tooling often associated with traditional Infrastructure as Code solutions, making deployments more streamlined and self-contained within the Kubernetes ecosystem. Yoke supports multiple cloud providers and offers features like diff previews and automated rollouts for improved control and visibility. This approach keeps the entire deployment process within the familiar Kubernetes context, simplifying management and reducing the operational overhead of infrastructure provisioning and updates.
HN commenters generally praise Yoke's approach to simplifying Kubernetes management by abstracting away YAML files and providing a more intuitive, code-based interface. Several users highlight the potential for improved developer experience and reduced cognitive overhead when dealing with Kubernetes. Some express concerns about the potential for vendor lock-in, the limitations of relying on generated YAML, and debugging complexity. Others suggest alternative tools and approaches, including Crossplane and Pulumi, while acknowledging that Yoke appears to offer a simpler, more streamlined solution for specific use cases. A few commenters also point out the parallels between Yoke and other developer tools like Ansible and Terraform, emphasizing the ongoing trend towards higher-level abstractions for managing infrastructure.
IBM has finalized its acquisition of HashiCorp, aiming to create a comprehensive, end-to-end hybrid cloud platform. This combination brings together IBM's existing hybrid cloud portfolio with HashiCorp's infrastructure automation tools, including Terraform, Vault, Consul, and Nomad. The goal is to provide clients with a streamlined experience for building, deploying, and managing applications across any environment, from on-premises data centers to multiple public clouds. This acquisition is intended to solidify IBM's position in the hybrid cloud market and accelerate the adoption of its hybrid cloud platform.
HN commenters are largely skeptical of IBM's ability to successfully integrate HashiCorp, citing IBM's history of failed acquisitions and expressing concern that HashiCorp's open-source ethos will be eroded. Several predict a talent exodus from HashiCorp, and some anticipate a shift towards competing products like Pulumi, Ansible, and Terraform alternatives. Others question the strategic rationale behind the acquisition, suggesting IBM overpaid and may struggle to monetize HashiCorp's offerings. The potential for increased vendor lock-in and higher prices are also raised as concerns. A few commenters express a cautious hope that IBM might surprise them, but overall sentiment is negative.
Massdriver, a Y Combinator W22 startup, launched a self-service cloud infrastructure platform designed to eliminate the complexities and delays typically associated with provisioning and managing cloud resources. It aims to streamline infrastructure deployment by providing pre-built, configurable building blocks and automating tasks like networking, security, and scaling. This allows developers to quickly deploy applications across multiple cloud providers without needing deep cloud expertise or dealing with tedious infrastructure management. Massdriver handles the underlying complexity, freeing developers to focus on building and deploying their applications.
Hacker News users discussed Massdriver's potential, pricing, and target audience. Some expressed excitement about the "serverless-like experience" for deploying infrastructure, particularly the focus on simplifying operations and removing boilerplate. Concerns were raised about vendor lock-in and the unclear pricing structure, with some comparing it to other Infrastructure-as-Code (IaC) tools like Terraform. Several commenters questioned the target demographic, wondering if it was aimed at developers unfamiliar with IaC or experienced DevOps engineers seeking a more streamlined workflow. The lack of open-sourcing was also a point of contention for some. Others shared positive experiences from the beta program, praising the platform's ease of use and speed.
A new Terraform provider allows for infrastructure-as-code management of Hrui (formerly TP-Link Omada) SDN-capable network switches, offering a cost-effective alternative to enterprise-grade solutions. This provider enables users to define and automate the configuration of Hrui-based networks, including VLANs, port settings, and other network features, directly within their Terraform deployments. This simplifies network management and improves consistency, particularly for those working with budget-conscious networking setups using these affordable switches.
HN users generally expressed interest in the terraform-provider-hrui, praising its potential for managing inexpensive hardware. Several commenters discussed the trade-offs of using cheaper, less feature-rich switches compared to enterprise-grade options, acknowledging the validity of both approaches depending on the use case. Some users questioned the long-term viability and support of the targeted hardware, while others shared their positive experiences with similar budget-friendly networking equipment. The project's open-source nature and potential for community contributions were also highlighted as positive aspects. A few commenters offered specific suggestions for improvement, such as expanding device compatibility and adding support for VLANs.
Summary of Comments ( 32 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43256802
The Hacker News comments generally praise the article for its practical approach to a complex problem (deploying to on-premise IIS from Azure DevOps). Several commenters appreciate the focus on simplicity and avoiding over-engineering, highlighting the use of built-in Azure DevOps features and PowerShell over more complex solutions. One commenter suggests using deployment groups instead of self-hosted agents for better security and manageability. Another emphasizes the importance of robust rollback procedures, which the article acknowledges but doesn't delve into deeply. A few commenters discuss alternative approaches, like using containers or configuration management tools, but acknowledge the validity of the author's simpler method for specific scenarios. Overall, the comments agree that the article provides a useful, real-world example of secure-enough deployments.
The Hacker News post titled "(Reasonably) secure Azure Pipelines on-prem deployments" discussing the linked blog post about secure deployments to IIS using Azure DevOps has generated a small but focused discussion thread. Several commenters engage with the specific technical details and offer alternative approaches or raise potential concerns.
One commenter points out a potential vulnerability if the deployment agent's machine account, which has write access to the web application directory, is compromised. They suggest an alternative where the build agent packages the application, and a separate deployment process, running under a more restricted account, handles the extraction and deployment to IIS. This separation of duties limits the potential damage from a compromised build agent.
Another commenter discusses the complexity and challenges associated with using tools like Ansible for deployments, particularly in Windows environments. They acknowledge the benefits of such tools but highlight the effort required to learn and maintain them, contrasting it with the relative simplicity of the approach presented in the blog post. This commenter suggests that while more sophisticated tools exist, the author's method might be a pragmatic solution for those prioritizing simplicity and ease of implementation.
A third commenter questions the security of storing deployment credentials within Azure DevOps, even if encrypted. They propose using a dedicated secrets management solution like Azure Key Vault for storing sensitive information and retrieving it during the deployment process. This approach enhances security by decoupling the secrets from the deployment pipeline itself.
The overall sentiment in the comments is one of cautious appreciation for the author's approach. Commenters acknowledge the practicality of the solution while also highlighting potential security concerns and suggesting alternative, more secure, albeit potentially more complex, methods. The discussion revolves around the trade-off between simplicity and security in real-world deployment scenarios. No one outright criticizes the author's method but instead offer constructive feedback and alternative perspectives for achieving secure deployments.