This chapter answers five questions:
\nWe'll keep using Crumb, the recipe-sharing site from the Scalability chapter. Crumb runs several identical app servers behind a load balancer. Sessions live in Redis, photos live in object storage, and the app servers share a cache and a database with read replicas. The Scalability chapter treated the load balancer as a box that sends each request to a free server. This chapter opens that box.
","headings":[]},{"id":"what-a-load-balancer-does","title":"What a load balancer does","html":"Think of the host at a busy restaurant. Guests don't pick their own waiter. The host seats them in a section whose waiter has room, and stops seating people in a section whose waiter has gone home sick. Guests never need to know who is working tonight.
\nA load balancer plays the host's role for servers. Clients connect to one address, the load balancer's. For each request or connection, it picks one server from the group behind it and forwards the request there. When the server replies, the load balancer passes the response back to the client. The servers behind it are called backends, the pool, or targets (AWS's word).
\nA load balancer has four jobs:
\nThe same idea works in front of database read replicas, a cache cluster, or an internal service. Wherever several identical servers can do a job, something has to decide which one gets each piece of work.
\nSoftware on ordinary machines now handles enormous traffic. Google's network load balancer, Maglev, runs on standard Linux servers. Google's 2016 paper says it \"has been serving Google's traffic since 2008,\" and that one Maglev machine \"is able to saturate a 10Gbps link with small packets.\"
","headings":[{"id":"what-a-load-balancer-does","title":"What a load balancer does","depth":3},{"id":"hardware-software-and-managed-load-balancers","title":"Hardware, software and managed load balancers","depth":4}]},{"id":"health-checks","title":"Health checks","html":"A load balancer can only avoid a broken server if it notices the server is broken. It does this with health checks, of two kinds.
\nIn an active check, the load balancer sends its own test request to each server on a schedule, such as GET /health every few seconds. A server that fails several checks in a row is taken out of rotation. It comes back after passing several in a row. Defaults vary a lot:
| Setting | AWS Application Load Balancer | HAProxy |
|---|---|---|
| Time between checks | 30 seconds | 2 seconds |
| Failures before marked down | 2 | 3 |
| Successes before marked up | 5 | 2 |
The AWS values are from its health check settings, which also set a 5-second timeout per check. The HAProxy values are the inter, fall and rise defaults in its configuration manual.
Here is what that means for Crumb. Say an app server crashes just after passing a check. With AWS's defaults, the next two checks fail about 30 and 60 seconds later, and only then is the server marked down. For roughly a minute, it keeps getting a share of real requests, and they fail. With HAProxy's defaults, the same crash is noticed in about 6 seconds. Checking more often finds failures sooner, at the cost of a little extra load.
\nIn a passive check, the load balancer watches the real traffic it forwards. If requests to a server keep failing, it stops using that server for a while. In NGINX's load balancing guide, max_fails sets how many failures mark a server as failed (the default is 1). After the fail_timeout period, NGINX tries the server again with live requests and brings it back if they succeed.
Passive checks react at once, but only after some users' requests have failed. Active checks find a dead server even when no traffic flows, but only on their schedule. Most setups use both.
\nA check that only proves the process is running can pass while the server can't do useful work. A check that tests a shared dependency, such as the database, can fail on every server at once. The availability chapter covers how to design a check that avoids both problems.
\nWhen every server fails its checks, the check itself is often wrong, and the servers may still answer some requests. So AWS's Application Load Balancer fails open: if every target is unhealthy, it sends traffic to all of them \"regardless of their health status.\" Possibly failing requests beat a certain outage.
","headings":[{"id":"health-checks","title":"Health checks","depth":3},{"id":"active-health-checks","title":"Active health checks","depth":4},{"id":"passive-health-checks","title":"Passive health checks","depth":4},{"id":"what-to-check-and-what-if-everything-fails","title":"What to check, and what if everything fails","depth":4}]},{"id":"choosing-a-server-routing-methods","title":"Choosing a server: routing methods","html":"For each request, the load balancer picks a server using a rule called the load balancing algorithm or routing method.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n| Method | How it picks | Good for | Watch out for |
|---|---|---|---|
| Round robin | Each server in turn | Similar servers and requests | Ignores how busy servers are |
| Weighted round robin | In turn, bigger servers get more turns | Servers of different sizes | Keeping weights up to date |
| Random | Any server, by chance | Many load balancers, no shared state | Short streaks of bad luck |
| Least loaded | The server doing the least work now | Requests of very different cost | New servers get flooded |
| Power of two choices | Two at random, then the less busy | Large fleets, many load balancers | A little more work per pick |
| Hashing | A hash of a key, such as IP or URL | Same key to the same server | Adding a server moves many keys |
| Session cookie | The server the cookie names | Apps with sessions on the server | Uneven load, lost sessions |
Round robin works like dealing cards: server 1, server 2, server 3, then back to server 1. It is the default in both NGINX and HAProxy.
\nIt assumes every server is the same size. When Crumb adds a server with twice the CPU of the others, weighted round robin gives it weight 2 and the old servers weight 1. Out of every four requests, the big server gets two and each small one gets one. NGINX's guide shows the same idea with weights of 3, 1 and 1.
\nIt also assumes every request costs about the same. A Crumb recipe page takes 20 ms. A search across five ingredients can take two seconds. If several slow searches land on one server, round robin keeps sending it its full share anyway.
\nRandom spreads load as evenly as round robin over thousands of requests, and needs no memory of whose turn it is. That helps when Crumb runs several load balancer machines: each can pick randomly without coordinating with the others.
\nLeast loaded methods send each request to the server doing the least work right now. Products measure work differently:
\nleast_conn, HAProxy's leastconn).least_time method that weighs average response time and active connections.These handle Crumb's slow searches well. A server stuck on three searches has more requests open than its neighbours, so new work goes elsewhere.
\nThey aren't always worth it. HAProxy's manual recommends leastconn \"where very long sessions are expected,\" such as database connections, and calls it \"not very well suited for protocols using short sessions such as HTTP.\" When requests finish in milliseconds, every server's count hovers near zero and says little.
There is also a trap. A new server has zero connections, so it looks like the best choice for every request at once and gets flooded before its caches warm up. Slow start fixes this by raising a new server's share gradually. HAProxy's slowstart grows it \"linearly from 0 to 100%\" over the time you set. AWS allows 30 to 900 seconds and leaves it off by default.
A cheaper way to get most of the benefit: pick two servers at random, and send the request to the less busy one.
\nMichael Mitzenmacher, Andréa Richa and Ramesh Sitaraman explain why this works in their survey. Picture balls dropped into bins. If each ball goes into one random bin, some bin ends up far fuller than average. If each ball checks two random bins and picks the emptier one, the fullest bin is dramatically less full. In their words, \"even a small amount of choice can lead to drastically different results,\" and each choice beyond two helps only a little more.
\nIt also suits several load balancers working side by side. If they all pick \"the least loaded server,\" they may all see the same quiet server and pile onto it together. With two random choices, they spread out. HAProxy's random algorithm draws 2 servers by default, which its manual says \"generally shows very good distribution and performance.\"
Sometimes requests that share something should land on the same server. Hash-based routing takes a key from the request, hashes it, and uses the result to pick a server. The same key always gives the same server.
\nip_hash./recipes/812 reaches the same cache server. HAProxy's manual says this is done \"to maximize the cache hit rate.\"The usual method divides the hash by the number of servers and keeps the remainder. Add or remove a server and that number changes, so most keys move. HAProxy warns that \"many clients will be directed to a different server.\" For a cache, that means a sudden wave of misses. Consistent hashing moves only a small share of keys when the pool changes. It has its own chapter.
\nFor Crumb: start with round robin, or least outstanding requests if request costs vary a lot. Add weights when servers differ in size. Use hashing only when keeping a key on one server pays off, as it does for caches.
","headings":[{"id":"choosing-a-server-routing-methods","title":"Choosing a server: routing methods","depth":3},{"id":"round-robin-weighted-round-robin-and-random","title":"Round robin, weighted round robin and random","depth":4},{"id":"least-loaded","title":"Least loaded","depth":4},{"id":"the-power-of-two-random-choices","title":"The power of two random choices","depth":4},{"id":"hashing-the-same-key-to-the-same-server","title":"Hashing: the same key to the same server","depth":4}]},{"id":"session-persistence-sticky-sessions","title":"Session persistence (sticky sessions)","html":"Session persistence, or sticky sessions, means sending all of one user's requests to the same server. It exists for apps that keep each user's login in the memory of the server they first reached. Scalability explains why such users get logged out when a request lands elsewhere.
\nLoad balancers usually do this with a cookie, a small piece of data the browser sends back with every request.
\nJSESSIONID cookie with the server's name, so the load balancer can read which server each user belongs to.Stickiness has costs. Load becomes uneven, because a server holding a few very active users can't hand them off. A server failure still logs out everyone stuck to it. And removing a server means waiting for its sessions to end.
\nThat's why Crumb keeps its servers stateless, with sessions in Redis. Any server can handle any request. Stickiness remains useful as an optimization: if a server caches a user's recent data locally, sending the user back gives more cache hits, and nothing breaks if they land elsewhere.
","headings":[{"id":"session-persistence-sticky-sessions","title":"Session persistence (sticky sessions)","depth":3}]},{"id":"tls-termination","title":"TLS termination","html":"Crumb's traffic is encrypted with TLS (Transport Layer Security), the protocol behind the browser's padlock. Its older name, SSL, survives in many product settings. A TLS server needs a certificate in the X.509 format, which proves it owns its domain name, plus a matching private key.
\nSetting up encrypted connections costs CPU. TLS termination (or SSL termination) means the load balancer does this work. AWS's listener documentation puts it plainly: the load balancer \"decrypts requests from clients before sending them to the back-end instances.\" It encrypts the responses on the way back.
\nThis has three benefits:
\n| Setup | Load balancer to app servers | Who holds certificates | Load balancer reads requests? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminate | Plain HTTP on a private network | Load balancer | Yes |
| Terminate and re-encrypt | A new TLS connection | Load balancer and servers | Yes |
| Pass-through | The client's encrypted stream, untouched | Servers | No |
Re-encryption suits rules that require encryption inside the data center. Pass-through keeps the load balancer from seeing any data, but limits it to layer 4 routing.
\nProxying also hides the client's address: app servers see connections from the load balancer. For HTTP, the load balancer adds an X-Forwarded-For header with the client's IP. For plain TCP, the proxy protocol adds a short header with it at the start of the connection. The security chapter covers TLS itself.
Networking is often described in layers, using the OSI model. Two layers matter here:
\nGET), the path (/recipes/812), headers, cookies and the body.Picture two people sorting mail. One reads only the envelope. The other opens each letter before deciding which department gets it. The first is faster. The second makes better decisions.
\nA layer 4 load balancer looks only at addresses and ports, never at the contents. It doesn't know whether the traffic is HTTP, a database protocol or a game. It picks a server when a connection starts and sends the whole connection there, usually by rewriting the packets' addresses. That rewriting is called network address translation (NAT).
\nAWS's Network Load Balancer works this way. Its documentation says it \"can handle millions of requests per second.\" It picks a target by hashing the protocol, addresses, ports and TCP sequence number, and \"each individual TCP connection is routed to a single target for the life of the connection.\" It also offers a fixed IP address per zone, which helps customers who must allow it through a firewall.
\nChoosing per connection has a catch. HTTP/2 and gRPC send many requests over one long-lived connection, so a layer 4 load balancer sends all of them to one server. The reverse proxy chapter notes the same problem in Kubernetes.
\nA layer 7 load balancer accepts the client's connection itself, reads the full request, picks a server, and sends the request over a separate connection to it. It usually keeps connections to each server open and ready, so it doesn't pay to open one per request.
\nBecause it reads requests, it can route on their contents:
\n/search to servers with extra memory and /upload to servers that handle large files.api.crumb.example and www.crumb.example can share one load balancer.It can also retry a failed request on another server, add headers, set sticky cookies, and answer some requests itself with a redirect or an error page.
\n| Layer 4 | Layer 7 | |
|---|---|---|
| Reads | Addresses and ports | Method, path, headers, cookies, body |
| Picks a server | Once per connection | Once per request |
| Protocols | Any TCP or UDP | HTTP and protocols built on it |
| TLS | Can pass it through | Must decrypt to route |
| Cost per request | Lower | Higher |
| AWS example | Network Load Balancer | Application Load Balancer |
Layer 4 gives up flexibility to use less time and computing power. On modern hardware the gap is often small for web traffic, so many teams default to layer 7 for its features. AWS's comparison page suggests its Network Load Balancer when \"extreme performance and static IP is needed,\" and its Application Load Balancer for \"flexible application management.\"
\nLarge sites often use both. GitHub's 2016 post introducing GLB describes a tier of layer 4 \"director\" machines spreading connections across a tier of layer 7 \"proxy\" machines running HAProxy.
\nEvery request to Crumb now passes through the load balancer, which brings three risks:
\nThe fix for risk 1 is more than one load balancer, in one of the two fail-over patterns from the availability chapter:
\nManaged cloud load balancers handle this redundancy for you. The managed service can still fail, though.
\nOn 24 December 2012, part of AWS's load balancing service in its US-East region broke. According to AWS's summary, a maintenance process was run by mistake against the live data describing customers' load balancers. The developer's access was meant to need approval each time, but it \"was incorrectly set to be persistent.\" Part of the data was deleted at 12:24 PM Pacific time.
\nLoad balancers left alone kept working. Ones that were changed or scaled during the event were left misconfigured. At the peak, 6.8% of running load balancers in the region were affected. AWS restored the data from a snapshot overnight and had almost all of them working by 10:30 AM on Christmas Day.
\nNetflix was hit. In its write-up, Adrian Cockcroft explained that Netflix used hundreds of load balancers, and \"a handful failed.\" Streaming on TV-connected devices in the US, Canada and Latin America was disrupted, and game consoles were affected for about seven hours. The servers behind them were fine: \"our applications continued to respond normally whenever the requests were able to get through.\"
\nThe lessons for Crumb:
\nNetflix responded by working toward surviving the loss of a whole region, which is where global load balancing comes in.
","headings":[{"id":"when-the-load-balancer-is-the-problem","title":"When the load balancer is the problem","depth":3},{"id":"running-load-balancers-in-pairs","title":"Running load balancers in pairs","depth":4},{"id":"a-real-incident-christmas-eve-2012","title":"A real incident: Christmas Eve 2012","depth":4}]},{"id":"adding-and-removing-servers-safely","title":"Adding and removing servers safely","html":"Crumb's pool changes daily. Deploys replace servers, and autoscaling adds servers at dinner time and removes them overnight.
\nConnection draining handles removal. The load balancer stops sending a departing server new requests but lets its current ones finish before it shuts down. AWS calls this the deregistration delay. It defaults to 300 seconds and can be set from 0 to 3,600. Set it a little above your slowest normal request. If Crumb's slowest uploads take 40 seconds, 60 seconds is enough. Long-lived connections, such as WebSockets, may never end by themselves, so the app should ask those clients to reconnect.
\nSlow start, from the routing section, handles the other direction: a fresh server's share of traffic rises gradually while its caches warm up.
","headings":[{"id":"adding-and-removing-servers-safely","title":"Adding and removing servers safely","depth":3}]},{"id":"global-load-balancing","title":"Global load balancing","html":"So far, everything happens inside one region. A load balancer in Virginia can't send a Sydney user to a nearby server, or help if Virginia goes down. Global load balancing picks which region a user reaches. The DNS and CDN chapter covers both main tools:
\nA large site stacks them: DNS or anycast picks the region, a layer 4 tier spreads connections, a layer 7 tier picks a pool, and the servers do the work.
","headings":[{"id":"global-load-balancing","title":"Global load balancing","depth":3}]},{"id":"horizontal-scaling-and-what-it-costs","title":"Horizontal scaling and what it costs","html":"Load balancers make horizontal scaling possible: adding more ordinary machines. Vertical scaling means replacing one machine with a bigger, pricier one. Scalability compares them.
\nFor the app tier, scaling out on commodity machines usually wins:
\nGitHub's own load balancers went this way. Its GLB post describes the old setup as a few large, vertically scaled HAProxy machines, where \"scaling horizontally was deemed too difficult.\" GLB was built to run on commodity hardware and scale out.
\nScaling out has three costs.
\n1. Complexity. You need a reliable way to build identical servers and deploy every change to all of them. The Scalability chapter covers images, containers and autoscaling.
\n2. Servers must be stateless. If a server keeps a session or an uploaded photo locally, the user's next request may land on a server without it. Keep sessions in a shared database or cache such as Redis, and files in object storage. Choose the session store carefully: Memcached keeps data only in memory, so a restart logs out everyone whose session it held. Redis with persistence turned on, or a database, survives restarts.
\n3. Downstream servers see more connections. Each app server opens its own connections to the cache and database. If each Crumb server keeps 20 database connections, 5 servers need 100 and 50 servers need 1,000. PostgreSQL's documentation gives its default limit as \"typically 100,\" and says raising it costs more shared memory. Growing the app tier can exhaust the database's connections even when query volume barely changes. Fixes include a connection pooler that lets many app servers share fewer real connections, smaller pools per server, and sending more reads to the cache and replicas.
","headings":[{"id":"horizontal-scaling-and-what-it-costs","title":"Horizontal scaling and what it costs","depth":3}]},{"id":"check-yourself","title":"Check yourself","html":"Round robin gives each server the same number of requests regardless of cost. One server has picked up several slow searches by chance, and it keeps getting its full share of new requests on top of them. Switch to a method that sees current load, such as least outstanding requests or the power of two random choices, so new requests avoid the busy server. You could also send /search to its own pool with a layer 7 rule, so slow searches can't delay ordinary pages.
Checks run every 30 seconds, and two failures in a row mark a server down. If it dies just after a passing check, it is marked down about a minute later, and requests sent to it in that minute fail. Shorten it by checking more often (HAProxy's default is every 2 seconds) and adding passive checks that remove a server as soon as real requests to it fail. Retrying failed requests on another server also hides some errors from users.
\nLayer 7. Every request arrives on the same address and port 443, so a layer 4 load balancer can't tell an upload from a recipe view. A layer 7 load balancer reads the path, but to do so it has to decrypt the request, so it terminates TLS. That also keeps the certificate and private key on the load balancer only. If traffic must stay encrypted inside the data center, it can re-encrypt toward the app servers.
\nGoing from four servers to five changes the result of the division for most URLs. Most requests now reach a cache server that doesn't hold their page, miss, and fall through to the database at once. Consistent hashing fixes this: adding a fifth server moves only about a fifth of the keys, and the rest keep hitting the server that already caches them.
\nA managed load balancer is usually redundant within a region, so one machine dying won't take it down. It is still one dependency for the whole site. In December 2012, AWS's load balancing service lost configuration data and some customer load balancers in one region failed for hours, including several Netflix used, while the servers behind them were healthy. Plan for it with more than one region behind global load balancing, few configuration changes during incidents, and monitoring from outside the load balancer so you can tell \"servers are down\" from \"nothing can reach them.\"
\nBackground and classics:
\nReal configuration and products:
\nbalance section explains each algorithm and when to use it. See fall, rise, inter and slowstart for health checks.X-Forwarded-For and the proxy protocol.max_connections and why raising it costs memory.Research and real systems:
\n