Which release are you using? I can work with you on the changes. I am assuming you are aware of the drawbacks with this scheme. Session state will be out of sync for all LB algorithms. Hence distribution of traffic or stickiness of traffic may not be as expected.
Rudra ________________________________________ From: Dominik Mostowiec <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 12:59 PM To: Rudra Rugge Cc: [email protected]; Piotr P Subject: Re: [opencontrail-dev] Active-active loadbalancer Hi, Thanks for this discussion, Your answares were very helpfull. If we want to try to configure service instances with different mac/ip address per service instance (on backend side), what we should do? Can You give us some tips? -- Regards Dominik 2015-08-18 23:58 GMT+02:00 Dominik Mostowiec <[email protected]>: > It looks ok. But we have some places where we need a little more in one > virtual. > Second thing. It would be nice to not have a limitation in lb and automatic > scaling via Heat. > > Regards > Dominik > > 18 sie 2015 23:33 "Rudra Rugge" <[email protected]> napisał(a): >> >> Please see the following for some LBaaS performance benchmarking. Most of >> the changes have been incorporated in the current mainline: >> >> http://www.symantec.com/connect/blogs/lbaas-performance-benchmarking >> >> >> >> Rudra >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Dominik Mostowiec <[email protected]> >> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 1:09 PM >> To: Rudra Rugge >> Cc: Piotr P; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [opencontrail-dev] Active-active loadbalancer >> >> >> We are searching for scalable and distributed LB solution which can >> achieve much more traffic than one haproxy process can. >> Yes, it possible to put many active-standby LBs behind DNS but i don't >> know if it is a good sution. >> >> Regards >> Dominik >> >> 18 sie 2015 21:34 "Rudra Rugge" <[email protected]> napisał(a): >>> >>> LVS seems like an L4-NAT based loadbalancer. It does not provide proxy >>> based load balancing as per my understanding. >>> >>> >>> Could you describe more on what you are looking to do and why the current >>> scheme does not fit. >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Rudra >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> From: Dominik Mostowiec <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 12:24 PM >>> To: Rudra Rugge >>> Cc: [email protected]; Piotr P >>> Subject: Re: [opencontrail-dev] Active-active loadbalancer >>> >>> >>> Is it possible for now to use another lb solution like lvs with >>> connection state syncing in active-active mode in contrail? >>> >>> Regards >>> Dominik >>> >>> 18 sie 2015 20:11 "Rudra Rugge" <[email protected]> napisał(a): >>>> >>>> This has more implications on session distribution - least connection, >>>> roundrobin, source-ip etc will not work properly in this solution and hence >>>> we have not supported it. Without all the TCP and LB state sync as part of >>>> a >>>> cluster its still not a perfect solution. >>>> >>>> >>>> Rudra >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> From: Dev <[email protected]> on behalf of Rudra Rugge >>>> <[email protected]> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 10:27 AM >>>> To: Piotr P; [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: [opencontrail-dev] Active-active loadbalancer >>>> >>>> >>>> This is something we are exploring as part of our next effort. >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Rudra >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> From: Dev <[email protected]> on behalf of Piotr P >>>> <[email protected]> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 10:17 AM >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: [opencontrail-dev] Active-active loadbalancer >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Let me ask one more question regarding load balancer because this is >>>> interesting topic. >>>> >>>> From what I’ve seen both instances have the same IP and MAC Adresses for >>>> both interfaces (Righ, Left). Normally separate instances of haproxy could >>>> have different addresses on the side of the backend Network. They will do >>>> checks individually. and probably could scale >2 instances. >>>> >>>> Is it possible even theoretically that we could do that by only change >>>> IP and MAC on the Backend Network Side ? In my mind we need only ECMP only >>>> for VIP Address, In Backend each instance could have unique mac and IP >>>> address. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Do you see this as possible scenario at all ? >>>> >>>> >>>> Kind Regards >>>> >>>> Piotr Pieprzycki >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> This configuration can cause asymmetric routing. Response for request >>>> going >>>> from LB1 to a backend server could come back to LB2. LB2 does not have >>>> any >>>> state for this response and hence will drop the packet. Without syncing >>>> all the >>>> TCP state it can lead to unpredictable results. To sync all state >>>> clustering >>>> support is needed. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Dev mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> >>>> http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org >>>> > -- Pozdrawiam Dominik _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org
