I'm hosting a web application which should be highly-available. I'm hosting on multiple linodes and using a nodebalancer to distribute the traffic. My question might be stupid simple - but not long ago I was affected by a DDoS hitting the data-center. That made me think how I can be better prepared next time this happens.
The nodebalancer and servers are all in the same datacenter which should, of course, be fixed. But how does one go about doing this? If I have two load balancers in two different data centers - how can I setup the domain to point to both, but ignore the one affected by DDoS? Should I look into the DNS manager? Am I making things too complicated?
Really would appreciate some insights.
Thanks everyone...
You have to look at ways to load balance across datacenters. There's a few ways to do this, each with pros and cons.
If you have a lot of DB calls, running to datacenters HOT can introduce a lot of latency problems. What I would do is as follows.
Have the second datacenter (DC2) be a warm location. It is configured for everything to work and is constantly getting data from the master DB in DC 1, but isn't actively getting traffic.
Use a service like CLoudFlare for their extremely fast DNS switching. Have a service in DC2 that constantly pings the load balancer in DC1 to make sure that everything is up and well. When it has trouble contacting DC1, it can connect to CloudFlare via the API and switch the main 'A' record to point to DC2, in which case it now picks up the traffic.
I forget what CloudFlare calls it but it has a DNS feature that allows you to switch 'A' records almost instantly because the actual IP address given to the public is their own, they just route the traffic for you.
Amazon also have a similar feature with CloudFront I believe.
This plan is costly however as you're running much more infrastructure that rarely gets used. Linode is and will be rolling out more network improvements so hopefully this becomes less necessary.
For more advanced load balancing and HA, you can go with more "cloud" providers but it does come at a cost.
-Ricardo
Developer Evangelist, CircleCI, formally Linode
Related
I'm newbie on AWS, and it has so many products (EC2, Load Balancer, EBS, S3, SimpleDB etc.), and so many docs, that I can't figure out where I must start from.
My goal is to be ready for scalability.
Suppose I want to set up a simple webserver, which access a database in mongolab. I suppose I need one EC2 instance to run it. At this point, do I need something more (EBS, S3, etc.)?
At some point of time, my app has reached enough traffic and I must scale it. I was thinking of starting a new copy (instance) of my EC2 machine. But then it will have another IP. So, how traffic is distributed between both EC2 instances? Is that did automatically? Must I hire a Load Balancer service to distribute the traffic? And then will I have to pay for 2 EC2 instances and 1 LB? At this point, do I need something more (e.g.: Elastic IP)?
Welcome to the club Sony Santos,
AWS is a very powerfull architecture, but with this power comes responsibility. I and presumably many others have learned the hard way building applications using AWS's services.
You ask, where do I start? This is actually a very good question, but you probably won't like my answer. You need to read and do research about all the technologies offered by amazon and even other providers such as Rackspace, GoGrid, Google's Cloud and Azure. Amazon is not easy to get going but its not meant to be really, its focus is more about being very customizable and have a very extensive api. But lets get back to your question.
To run a simple webserver you would need to start an EC2 instance this instance by default runs on a diskdrive called EBS. Essentially an EBS drive is a normal harddrive except that you can do lots of other cool stuff with it like take it off one server and move it to another. S3 is really more of a file storage system its more useful if you have a bunch of images or if you want to store a lot of backups of your databases etc, but its not a requirement for a simple webserver. Just running an EC2 instance is all you need, everything else will happen behind the scenes.
If you app reaches a lot of traffic you have two options. You can scale your machine up by shutting it off and starting it with a larger instance. Generally speaking this is the easiest thing to do, but you'll get to a point where you either cannot handle all the traffic with 1 instance even at the larger size and you'll decide you need two OR you'll want a more fault tolerant application that will still be online in the event of a failure or update.
If you create a second instance you will need to do some form of loadbalancing. I recommend using amazons Elastic Load Balancer as its easy to configure and its integration with the cloud is better than using Round Robin DNS or a application like haproxy. Elastic Load Balancers are not expensive, I believe they cost around $18 / month + data that's passed between the loadbalancer.
But no, you don't need anything else to do scale up your site. 2 EC2 instances and a ELB will do the trick.
Additional questions you didn't ask but probably should have.
How often does an EC2 instance experience hardware failure and crash my server. What can I do if this happens?
It happens frequently, usually in batches. Sometimes I go months without any problems then I will get a few servers crash at a time. But its defiantly something you should plan for I didn't in the beginning and I paid for it. Make sure you create scripts and have backups and a backup plan ready incase your server fails. Be ok with it being down or have a load balanced solution from day 1.
Whats the hardest part about scalabilty?
Testing testing testing testing... Don't ever assume anything. Also be prepared for sudden spikes in your traffic. You have to be prepared for anything if you page goes from 1 to 1000 people over night are you prepared to handle it? Have you tested what you "think" will happen?
Best of luck and have fun... I know I have :)
I've been tasked with determining if Amazon EC2 is something we should move our ecommerce site to. We currently use Amazon S3 for a lot of images and files. The cost would go up by about $20/mo for our host costs, but we could sell our server for a few thousand dollars. This all came up because right now there are no procedures in place if something happened to our server.
How reliable is Amazon EC2? Is the redundancy good, I don't see anything about this in the FAQ and it's a problem on our current system I'm looking to solve.
Are elastic IPs beneficial? It sounds like you could point DNS to that IP and then on Amazon's end, reroute that IP address to any EC2 instance so you could easily get another instance up and running if the first one failed.
I'm aware of scalability, it's the redundancy and reliability that I'm asking about.
At work, I've had something like 20-40 instances running at all times for over a year. I think we've had 1-3 alert emails come from amazon suggesting that we terminate and boot another instance (presumably because they are detecting possible failure in the underlying hardware). We've never had an instance go down suddenly, which seems rather good.
Elastic IP's are amazing and are part of the solution. The other part is being able to rapidly bring up new instances. I've learned that you shouldn't care about instances going down, that it's more important to use proper load balancing and be able to bring up commodity instances quickly.
Yes, it's very good. If you aren't able to put together a concurrent redundancy (where you have multiple servers fulfilling requests simultaneously), using the elastic IP to quickly redirect to another EC2 instance would be a way to minimize downtime.
Yeah I think moving from inhouse server to Amazon will definitely make a lot of sense economically. EBS backed instances ensure that even if the machine gets rebooted, the transient memory is not lost. And if you have a clear separation between your application and data layer and can have them on different machines, then you can build even better redundancy for your data.
For ex, if you use mysql, then you can consider using Amazon RDS service - which gives you a highly available and reliable MySQL instance, fully managed (patches and all). The application layer then can be made more resilient by having more smaller instances rather than one larger instance, through load balancing.
The cost you will save on is really hardware maintenance and the cost you would have to incur to build in disaster recovery.
I currently hold a tracking service that records visits from various sources. At times we record the visits and redirect to our clients or we let clients call us to report visits. The architecture is two worker boxes configured behind a load-balancer. This system is setup using Amazon EC2 and the load-balancer used is Amazon's Elastic LB.
I did some benchmarking tests and have noticed significant network latencies. The traffic through load-balancer suffers atleast 2 times more delay than hitting any of the boxes directly.
Has anyone experienced such an issue and has attempted to solve it? Is this an Amazon EC2 specific issue?
Is there any other architecture in use that would lower my network latencies significantly. e.g. Using a HA such that traffic needn't go through a load-balancer but instead hits the end point servers directly? Before I start investing time on that I wanted to hear what others think of the same.
Thanks alot for your time,
Santosh
Change your LB and give it another try. HAProxy is great session/cookie aware L7 balancer and can be setup in Amazon cloud AFAIK. See this: http://agiletesting.blogspot.com/2009/02/load-balancing-in-amazon-ec2-with.html
You have to take into account that ELBs perform better after a while, then initially. Don't ask me why, but that's how it is -- loadbalancer warming?
It also really depends how much traffic you sent the ELB. Keep in mind that the hardware the ELB is provisioned on seems like a regular small instance. So the throughput is capped at ~25 MBit (last time I checked). If you require more, go dedicated.
In the end, I too would suggest that you look Haproxy on a dedicated instance. I'd expect some delay, 2x more delay sounds unreal. Maybe use another small instance and benchmark it directly against the ELB and then try a c1.medium.
After researching various hosts, I still get the feeling that it is somewhat impossible to get a host that would never go down.
Maybe these hosts employ redundancy, maybe they do not. Either case, how would one display a friendly message to the user along the lines of "BRB". What if your host goes down completely for an hour? You would need a way to tell users you would be back. How do you accomplish that?
I doubt any ISP or hosting provider would do that for you. To archieve that you need very expensive and complicated infrastructure like redundant fail-safe routers and backbones in addition to servers of course - and you need multiple. The concepts like Simple Failover requires DNS updates which take minutes to hours to propagate normally, so it's not a 100% solution either. See a good Joel's article for a related discussion.
If the host is down and you're on a single server, then you are definitely down. This is a limitation of shared hosting... there's not much you can do about it. You can ask your host if you are hosted on multiple servers for redundancy... if so, then you wouldn't have to worry about it.
If you host your own server, then you could maybe get your hands on Simple Failover and maybe have a cheap Virtual Dedicated server that goes UP when your primary goes down.
Ok, every host will have downtime at some point. Your best bet would be to go with someone who has the great customer service that can help get your box back up. 99% of the time when your box goes down its your fault (if you have access to the OS/Apache etc).
The people at Rackspace are awesome for hosting + customer service. The rackspace cloud is great allowing you to create and take down servers instantly. (slicehost is good for persistent boxes charged by month, also owned by rackspace)
As for a way to communicate to your users, i would employ twitter, tumblr, or a hosted blog service. This way if your box goes down you can communicate your message via these services which are most likely on a different host/network.
We've been fighting with HAProxy for a few days now in Amazon EC2; the experience has so far been great, but we're stuck on squeezing more performance out of the software load balancer. We're not exactly Linux networking whizzes (we're a .NET shop, normally), but we've so far held our own, attempting to set proper ulimits, inspecting kernel messages and tcpdumps for any irregularities.
So far though, we've reached a plateau of about 1,700 requests/sec, at which point client timeouts abound (we've been using and tweaking httperf for this purpose). A coworker and I were listening to the most recent Stack Overflow podcast, in which the Reddit founders note that their entire site runs off one HAProxy node, and that it so far hasn't become a bottleneck. Ack! Either there's somehow not seeing that many concurrent requests, we're doing something horribly wrong, or the shared nature of EC2 is limiting the network stack of the Ec2 instance (we're using a large instance type). Considering the fact that both Joel and the Reddit founders agree that network will likely be the limiting factor, is it possible that's the limitation we're seeing?
Any thoughts are greatly appreciated!
Edit It looks like the actual issue was not, in fact, with the load balancer node! The culprit was actually the nodes running httperf, in this instance. As httperf builds and tears down a socket for each request, it spends a good amount of CPU time in the kernel. As we bumped the request rate higher, the TCP FIN TTL (being 60s by default) was keeping sockets around too long, and the ip_local_port_range's default was too low for this usage scenario. Basically, after a few minutes of the client (httperf) node constantly creating and destroying new sockets, the number of unused ports ran out, and subsequent 'requests' errored-out at this stage, yielding low request/sec numbers and a large amount of errors.
We also had looked at nginx, but We've been working with RighScale, and they've got drop-in scripts for HAProxy. Oh, and we've got too tight a deadline [of course] to switch out components unless it proves absolutely necessary. Mercifully, being on AWS allows us to test out another setup using nginx in parallel (if warranted), and make the switch overnight later on.
This page describes each of the sysctl variables fairly well (ip_local_port_range and tcp_fin_timeout were tuned, in this case).
Not answering the question directly, but EC2 now supports load balancing through Elastic Load Balancing rather than running your own load balancer in an EC2 instance.
EDIT: Amazon's Route 53 DNS service now offers a way to point a top-level domain at an ELB with an "alias" record. Since Amazon knows the current IP address of the ELB, it can return an A record for that current IP rather than having to use a CNAME record, while still being free to change the IP from time to time.
Not really an answer to your question, but nginx and pound both have good reputations as load-balancers. Wordpress just switched to nginx with good results.
But more specifically, to debug your problem. If you aren't seeing 100% cpu usage (including I/O wait), then you are network bound, yes.
EC2 internally uses a gigabit network, try using an XL instance, so you have the underlying hardware to yourself, and don't have to share that gigabit network port.
Yes, You could use an off-site load balancer.. and on bare metal LVS is a great choice, but your latency will be awful! Rumour has it that Amazon is going to fix the CNAME issue. However they are unlikely to add https, indepth or custom health checks, feedback agents, url matching, cookie insertion (and some people with good architecture would say quite right too.) However thats why Scalr, RightScale and others are using HAProxy usually two of them behind a round robin DNS entry. Here at Loadbalancer.org we are just about to launch our own EC2 load balancing appaliance:
http://blog.loadbalancer.org/ec2-load-balancer-appliance-rocks-and-its-free-for-now-anyway/
We are planning on using SSH scripts to intergrate with autoscaling in the same way rightscale does, any comments appreciated on the blog.
Thanks
I would look at switching to a off-site load balancer, not in the cloud and run something like IPVS on top of it. [The reason why it would be off of amazon's cloud is because of kernel stuff] If Amazon doesn't limit the source IP of packets coming out of the you could go with a unidirectional load balancing mechanism. We do something like this, and it gets us about 800,000 simultaneous requests [though we don't deal with latency]. I also would say use "ab2" (apache bench), as it is a little more user friendly, and easier to use in my humble opinion.
Even though your issue solved. KEMP Technologies now have a fully blown load balancer for AWS. Might save you some hassle.