#devops The canary deployment pattern is another means of enabling continuous delivery.
Deployment patterns (or as I like to call them of late, devops patterns) are good examples of how devops can put into place systems and tools that enable continuous delivery to be, well, continuous. The goal of these patterns is, for the most part, to make sure operations can smoothly move features, functions, releases or applications into production.
Canary deployments are applicable when you're running a cluster of servers. In other words, you've got lots and lots of (probably active right now while you're considering pushing that next release) users. What you don't want is to do the traditional "we're sorry, we're down for maintenance, here's a picture of a funny squirrel to amuse you while you wait" maintenance page. You want to be able to roll out the new release without disruption.
Yeah, that's quite the ask, isn't it?
The Canary deployment pattern is an incremental upgrade methodology. First, the build is pushed to a small set of servers to which only a select group of users are directed. If that goes well, the release is pushed to a larger set of servers with a limited set of users. Finally, if that goes well, then the release is pushed out to all servers and all users. If issues occur at any stage, the release is halted - it goes no further. Hence the naming of the pattern - after the miner's canary, used because "its demise provided a warning of dangerous levels of toxic gases".
The trick to implementing this pattern is two fold: first, being able to group the servers used in each step into discrete pools and second, the ability to direct specific sets of users to the appropriate pools. Both capabilities requires the ability to execute some logic to perform user-based load balancing.
Nolio, in its first Devops Best Practices video, implements Canary deployments by manipulating the pools of servers at the load balancing tier, removing them to upgrade and then reinserting them for testing before moving onto the next phase.
If your load balancing solution is programmable, there's no need to actually remove them as you can simply insert logic to remove them from being selected until they've been upgraded. You can also then insert the logic to determine which users are directed to which pool of servers. If the load balancing platform is really programmable, you can even extend that to determination to querying a database to determine user inclusion in certain groups, such as those you might use to perform AB testing. Such logic might base the decision on IP address (not the best option but an option) or later, when you're actually rolling out to a percentage of users you can write logic that randomly selects users based on location or their user name - like sharding, only in reverse - or pretty much anything you can think of. You can even split that further if you're rolling out an update to an API that's used by both mobile and traditional clients, to catch both or neither or specific types in an orderly fashion so you can test methodically - because you want to test methodically when you're using live users as test subjects.
The beauty of this pattern is that allows continuous delivery. Users are never disrupted (if you do it right) and the upgrade occurs in a safely staged, incremental fashion. That enables you to back out quickly if necessary, because you do have a back button plan, right?