You can have BGP-ECMP to multiple HAProxy instances to support active-active mode, instead of using keepalived for active-backup mode, if the traffic amount does required multiple HAProxy instances. Tony ________________________________________ From: Graham Allan <gta@xxxxxxx> Sent: February 14, 2021 01:31 PM To: Matthew Vernon Cc: ceph-users Subject: Re: share haproxy config for radosgw [EXT] On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 11:00 AM Matthew Vernon <mv3@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 07/02/2021 22:19, Marc wrote: > > > > I was wondering if someone could post a config for haproxy. Is there > something specific to configure? Like binding clients to a specific backend > server, client timeouts, security specific to rgw etc. > > Ours is templated out by ceph-ansible; to try and condense out just the > interesting bits: > > (snipped the config...) > > The aim is to use all available CPU on the RGWs at peak load, but to > also try and prevent one user overwhelming the service for everyone else > - hence the dropping of idle connections and soft (and then hard) limits > on per-IP connections. > Can I ask a followup question to this: how many haproxy instances do you then run - one on each of your gateways, with keepalived to manage which is active? I ask because, since before I was involved with our ceph object store, it has been load-balanced between multiple rgw servers directly using bgp-ecmp. It doesn't sound like this is common practise in the ceph community, and I'm wondering what the pros and cons are. The bgp-ecmp load balancing has the flaw that it's not truly fault tolerant, at least without additional checks to shut down the local quagga instance if rgw isn't responding - it's only fault tolerant in the case of an entire server going down, which meets our original goals of rolling maintenance/updates, but not a radosgw process going unresponsive. In addition I think we have always seen some background level of clients being sent "connection reset by peer" errors, which I have never tracked down within radosgw; I wonder if these might be masked by an haproxy frontend? The converse is that all client gateway traffic must generally pass through a single haproxy instance, while bgp-ecmp distributes the connections across all nodes. Perhaps haproxy is lightweight and efficient enough that this makes little difference to performance? Graham _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx
 |