I have a golang service that implements a WebSocket client using gorilla that is exposed to a Google Container Engine (GKE)/k8s cluster via a NodePort (30002 in this case).
I've got a manually created load balancer (i.e. NOT at k8s ingress/load balancer) with HTTP/HTTPS frontends (i.e. 80/443) that forward traffic to nodes in my GKE/k8s cluster on port 30002.
I can get my JavaScript WebSocket implementation in the browser (Chrome 58.0.3029.110 on OSX) to connect, upgrade and send / receive messages.
I log ping/pongs in the golang WebSocket client and all looks good until 30s in. 30s after connection my golang WebSocket client gets an EOF / close 1006 (abnormal closure) and my JavaScript code gets a close event. As far as I can tell, neither my Golang or JavaScript code is initiating the WebSocket closure.
I don't particularly care about session affinity in this case AFAIK, but I have tried both IP and cookie based affinity in the load balancer with long lived cookies.
Additionally, this exact same set of k8s deployment/pod/service specs and golang service code works great on my KOPS based k8s cluster on AWS through AWS' ELBs.
Any ideas where the 30s forced closures might be coming from? Could that be a k8s default cluster setting specific to GKE or something on the GCE load balancer?
Thanks for reading!
-- UPDATE --
There is a backend configuration timeout setting on the load balancer which is for "How long to wait for the backend service to respond before considering it a failed request".
The WebSocket is not unresponsive. It is sending ping/pong and other messages right up until getting killed which I can verify by console.log's in the browser and logs in the golang service.
That said, if I bump the load balancer backend timeout setting to 30000 seconds, things "work".
Doesn't feel like a real fix though because the load balancer will continue to feed actual unresponsive services traffic inappropriately, never mind if the WebSocket does become unresponsive.
I've isolated the high timeout setting to a specific backend setting using a path map, but hoping to come up with a real fix to the problem.
I think this may be Working as Intended. Google just updated the documentation today (about an hour ago).
LB Proxy Support docs
Backend Service Components docs
Cheers,
Matt
Check out the following example: https://github.com/kubernetes/ingress-gce/tree/master/examples/websocket
Related
I have an AWS Application load balancer to distribute the http(s) traffic.
Problem 1:
Suppose I have a target group with 2 EC2 instances: micro and xlarge. Obviously they can handle different traffic levels. Does the load balancer manage traffic proportionally to instance sizes or just round robin? If only round robin is used and no other factors taken into account, then it's not really balancing load, because at some point the micro instance will be suffering from the traffic, while xlarge will starve.
Problem 2:
Suppose I have target group with 2 EC2 instances, both are same size. But my service is not using a classic http request/response flow. It is using HTTP websockets, i.e. a client makes HTTP request just once, to establish a socket, and then keeps the socket open for longer time, sending and receiving messages (e.g. a chat service). Let's suppose my load balancer is using round robin and both EC2 instances have 1000 clients connected each. Now suppose one of the EC2 instances goes down and 1000 connected clients drop their socket connections. The instance gets back up quickly and is ready to accept websocket calls again. The 1000 clients who dropped are trying to reconnect. Now, if the load balancer would use pure round robin, I'll end up with 1500 clients connected to instance #1 and 500 clients connected to instance #2, thus not really balancing the load correctly.
Basically, I'm trying to find out if some more advanced logic is being used to select a target in a group, or is it just a naive round robin selection. If it's round robin only, then how can I really balance the websocket connections load?
Websockets start out as http or https connections, so a load balancer can dispatch them to a server. Once the server accepts the http connection, both the server and the client "upgrade" the connection to use the websocket protocol. They then leave the connection open to use for websocket traffic. As far as the load balancer can tell, the connection is simply a long-lasting http connection.
Taking a server down when it has websocket connections to clients requires your application to retry lost connections. Reconnecting on connection failure is one of the trickiest parts of websocket client programming. Your application cannot be robust without reconnect logic.
AWS's load balancer has no built-in knowledge of the capabilities of the servers behind it. You have observed that it sends requests equally to big and small servers. That can overwhelm the small ones.
I have managed this by building a /healthcheck endpoint in my servers. It's a straightforward https://example.com/heathcheck web page. You can put a little bit of content on the page announcing how many websocket connections are currently open, or anything else. Don't password protect it or require a session to hit it.
My /healthcheck endpoints, whenever hit, measure the server load. I simply use the number of current websocket connections, but you can use any metric you want. I compare the current load to a load threshold configured for each server. For example, on a micro instance I can handle 20 open websockets, and on a production instance I can handle 400.
If the server load is too high, my endpoint gives back a 503 http error status along with its content. 503 typically means "I am overloaded, please try again later." It can also mean "I will shut down when all my connections are closed. Please don't use me for any more connections."
Then I configure the load balancer to perform those health checks every couple of minutes on all the servers in the server pool (AWS calls the pool a "target group"). The health check operation detects "unhealthy" servers and temporarily takes them out of its rotation. (The health check also detects crashed servers, which is good.)
You need this loadbalancer health check for a large-scale production setup.
All that being said, you will get best results if all your server instances in your pool have roughly the same capacity as each other.
Our infrastructure is composed by
1 F5 load balancer
3 nodes
We have an application which uses websockets, so when a user goes to our site, it opens a websocket to the balancer which it connects to the first available node, and it works as expected.
Our truobles arrives with maintenance tasks, when we have to update our software, we need to turn offline 1 node at a time, deploy the new release and then turn it on again. Doing this task, the balancer drops the open websocket connections to the node and the clients retries to connect after few seconds to the first available nodes, creating an inconvenience for the client because he could miss a signal (or more).
How we can keep the connection between the client and the balancer, changing the backend websocket server? Is the load balancer enough to achieve our goal or we need to change our infrastructure?
To avoid this kind of problems I recommend to read about the Azure SignalR. With this you don't need to thing about stuff like load balancer, redis backplane and other infrastructures that you possibly need to a WebSockets connection.
Basically the clients will not connected to your node directly but redirected to Azure SignalR. You can read more about it here: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-signalr/signalr-overview
Since it is important to your application to maintain the connection, I don't see how any other way to archive no connection drop to your nodes, since you need to shut them down.
It's important to understand that the F5 is a full TCP proxy. This means that the F5 is the server to the client and the client to the server. If you are using the websockets protocol then you must apply a websockets profile to the F5 Virtual Server in order for the websockets application to be handled properly by the Load Balancer.
Details of the websockets profile can be found here: https://support.f5.com/csp/article/K14754
If a websockets and an HTTP profile are applied to the Virtual Server - meaning that you have websockets and web traffic using the same port and LB nodes - then the F5 will allow the websockets traffic as passthrough. Also keep in mind that if this is an HTTPS virtual sever that you will need to ensure a client and server side HTTPS profile (SSL offload) are applied to the Virtual Server.
While there are a variety of ways that you can fiddle with load balancers to minimize the downtime caused by a software upgrade, none of them solve the problem, which is that your application-layer protocol seems to not tolerate some small network outages.
Even if you have a perfect load balancer and your software deploys cause zero downtime, the customer's computer may be on flaky wifi which causes a network dropout for half a second - or going over ethernet and someone reconfigures some routing on their LAN, etc.
I'd suggest having your server maintain a queue of messages for clients (up to some size/time limit) so that when a client drops a connection - whether it be due to load balancers/upgrades - or any other reason, it can continue without disruption.
We're using node js backend servers running in AWS ECS, behind an ALB. We then have AWS API gateway with a proxy lambda calling the ALB. This has been running in production for months, when suddenly a few days ago we started seeing 502 errors from some API calls.
I've checked the proxy lambda logs to see that the 502 is returned from the ALB. However, when I check my node application logs, there are no failing requests, in fact no requests seem to have reached the application at these timestamps. I then enabled access logs on the ALB, which only shows 200/201 responses - no 5xx whatsoever. I'm now a bit confused as to where to look next. What could cause my ALB to return 502 without this being present in the ALB access logs? And what could cause the requests to not reach my node app in ECS? Does anyone have any idea on what logs to check next or what to do to pinpoint the errors? Could some layer within ECS cause those symptoms? I can't see any errors in my docker containers or anything.
It seems to happen in bursts, up to 50 failed requests within a period of time, then all ok for several hours.
It could be due to a number of reasons. The below may be applicable to you -
The load balancer received a TCP RST from the target when attempting
to establish a connection.
The load balancer received an unexpected response from the target,
such as "ICMP Destination unreachable (Host unreachable)", when
attempting to establish a connection. Check whether traffic is allowed
from the load balancer subnets to the targets on the target port.
The target closed the connection with a TCP RST or a TCP FIN while the
load balancer had an outstanding request to the target. Check whether
the keep-alive duration of the target is shorter than the idle timeout
value of the load balancer.
The target response is malformed or contains HTTP headers that are not
valid.
The load balancer encountered an SSL handshake error or SSL handshake
timeout (10 seconds) when connecting to a target.
reference docs
This turned out to be memory leaks in my container applications. The RAM usage grew with every request until crash. At that point it took a while for ECS and ALB to react, so a bunch of requests were routed to the dead instance.
The problem was resolved by fixing the leak, but I'd have wanted better built in support for alarms on high memory usage from ECS/cloudwatch with triggers to replace instances on high usage gracefully. Seems i have to build that from scratch.
How do I enable a port on Google Kubernetes Engine to accept websocket connections? Is there a way of doing so other than using an ingress controller?
Web sockets are supported by Google's global load balancer, so you can use a k8s Service of type LoadBalancer to expose such a service beyond your cluster.
Do be aware that load balancers created and managed outside Kubernetes in this way will have a default connection duration of 30 seconds, which interferes with web socket operation and will cause the connection to be closed frequently. This is almost useless for web sockets to be used effectively.
Until this issue is resolved, you will either need to modify this timeout parameter manually, or (recommended) consider using an in-cluster ingress controller (e.g. nginx) which affords you more control.
As per this article in the GCP documentation, there are 4 ways that you may expose a Service to external applications.
It can be exposed with a ClusterIP, a NodePort, a (TCP/UDP) Load Balancer, or an External Name.
I have a question about how to load balance web sockets with AWS elastic load balancer.
I have 2 EC2 instances behind AWS elastic load balancer.
When any user login, the user session will be established with one of the server, say EC2 instance1. Now, all the requests from the same user will be routed to EC2 instance1.
Now, I have a different stateless request coming from a different system. This request will have userId in it. This request might end up going to a EC2 instance2. We are supposed to send a notification to the user based on the userId in the request.
Now,
1) Assume, the user session is with the EC2 instance1, but the notification is originating from the EC2 instance2.
I am not sure how to notify the user browser in this case.
2) Is there any limitation on the websocket connection like 64K and how to overcome with multiple servers, since user is coming thru Load balancer.
Thanks
You will need something else to notify the browser's websocket's server end about the event coming from the other system. There are a couple of publish-subscribe based solution which might help, but without knowing more details it is a bit hard to figure out which solution fits the best. Redis is generally a good answer, and Elasticache supports it.
I found this regarding to AWS ELB's limits:
http://docs.aws.amazon.com/general/latest/gr/aws_service_limits.html#limits_elastic_load_balancer
But none of them seems to be related to your question.
Websocket requests start with HTTP communication before handing over to websockets. In theory if you could include a cookie in that initial HTTP request then the sticky session features of ELB would allow you to direct websockets to specific EC2 instances. However, your websocket client may not support this.
A preferred solution would be to make your EC2 instances stateless. Store the websocket session data in AWS Elasticache (Either Redis or Memcached) and then incoming connections will be able to access the session regardless of which EC2 instance is used.
The advantage of this solution is that you remove the dependency on individual EC2 instances and your application will scale and handle failures better.
If the ELB has too many incoming connections, then it should scale automatically. Although I can't find a reference for that. ELB's are relatively slow to scale - minutes rather than seconds, if you are expecting surges in traffic then AWS can "pre-warm" more ELB resource for you. This is done via support requests.
Also, factor in the ELB connection time out. By default this is 60 seconds, it can be increased via the AWS console or API. Your application needs to send at least 1 byte of traffic before the timeout or the ELB will drop the connection.
Recently had to hook up crossbar.io websockets with ALB. Basically there are two things to consider. 1) You need to set stickiness to 1 day on the target group attributes. 2) You either need something on the same port that returns static webpage if connection is not upgraded, or a separate port serving a static webpage with a custom health check specifying that port on the target group. Go for a ALB over ELB, ALB's have support for ws:// and wss://, they only lack the health check over websockets.