We have infinispan with 7 nodes in the cluster.
We have a set of clients connecting to three nodes as configured in hotrodclient.properties and another set of clients connecting to remaining nodes in the cluster.
Our objective is to distribute the load on the cluster . Is it ok to do like this ?
The Hot Rod client already performs load balancing by default. Based on the configured intelligence, it performs round-robing or contacts the server which owns the data to be accessed directly.
You have more information on the documentation page (Section 2.3 and 2.3.1).
Related
I can't find in the recent documentation the pros/cons of using a loadbalancer instead of a list of nodes when setting
spring.rabbitmq.addresses
why it's better to use the list of nodes instead of loadbalancer?
My rabbitmq cluster (3 nodes) is consumed by 40 spring boot applications, and around 500 queues.
By default, only a single connection is opened, so a load balancer won't really do much for you, unless you change the CachingConnectionFactory CacheMode to CONNECTION.
The list of addresses is so the client can fail over to another broker without the need for a load balancer.
I am trying to implement a 3 master 3 slave architecture with redis cluster. I want to redirect my client to slave if master is blocked (like undergoing a MULTI EXEC query) or redirect to master if slave is synchronising the MULTI EXEC query. Is there any way I can achieve it through redis configuration, or do I need to manually implement this logic with the client library (redis-rb) I am using?
Thanks in advance.
As I know, there isn't any proxy or balancing in redis cluster that you can control. In Redis Cluster nodes don't proxy commands to the right node in charge for a given key, but instead, they redirect clients to the right nodes serving a given portion of the keyspace. So you can't somehow control this from config.
Maybe your case with MULTI EXEC will be handled by the client library because it knows all about redis master nodes config
I am using Redis Cluster on 3 Linux servers (CentOS 7). I have standard configuration i.e. 6 nodes, 3 master instances, and 3 slave instances (one master have one slave) distributed on these 3 Linux servers. I am using this setup for my web application for data caching, HTTP response caching. My aim is to read primary and write secondary i.e. Read operation should not fail or delayed.
Now I would like to ask is it necessary to configure any load balancer before by 3 Linux servers so that my web application requests to Redis cluster instances can be distributed properly on these Redis servers? Or Redis cluster itself able to handle the load distribution?
If Yes, then please mention any reference link to configure the same. I have checked official documentation Redis Cluster but it does not specify anything regarding load balancer setup.
If you're running Redis in "Cluster Mode" you don't need a load balancer. Your Redis client (assuming it's any good) should contact Redis for a list of which slots are on which nodes when your application starts up. It will hash keys locally (in your application) and send requests directly to the node which owns the slot for that key (which avoids the extra call to Redis which results in a MOVED response).
You should be able to configure your client to do reads on slave and writes on master - or to do both reads and writes on only masters. In addition to configuring your client, if you want to do reads on slaves, check out the READONLY command: https://redis.io/commands/readonly .
Playing a bit with Kubernetes (v1.3.2) I’m checking the ability to load balance calls inside the cluster (3 on-premise CentOS 7 VMs).
If I understand correctly the documentation in http://kubernetes.io/docs/user-guide/services/ ‘Virtual IPs and service proxies’ paragraph, and as I see in my tests, the load balance is per node (VM). I.e., if I have a cluster of 3 VMs and deployed a service with 6 pods (2 per VM), the load balancing will only be between the pods of the same VM which is somehow disappointing.
At least this is what I see in my tests: Calling the service from within the cluster using the service’s ClusterIP, will load-balance between the 2 pods that reside in the same VM that the call was sent from.
(BTW, the same goes when calling the service from out of the cluster (using NodePort) and then the request will load-balance between the 2 pods that reside in the VM which was the request target IP address).
Is the above correct?
If yes, how can I make internal cluster calls load-balance between all the 6 replicas? (Must I employ a load balancer like nginx for this?)
No, the statement is not correct. The loadbalancing should be across nodes (VMs). This demo demonstrates it. I have run this demo on a k8s cluster with 3 nodes on gce. It first creates a service with 5 backend pods, then it ssh into one gce node and visits the service.ClusterIP, and the traffic is loadbalanced to all 5 pods.
I see you have another question "not unique ip per pod" open, it seems you hadn't set up your cluster network properly, which might caused what you observed.
In your case, each node will be running a copy of the service - and load-balance across the nodes.
I was able to set up Network of Brokers with store and forward strategy and working fine. I was given bigger machines now and would like to set up Master/Slave pair within the network of brokers. I understand Masters don't need any config changes but Slaves should indicate its corresponding master with URI. However, I'm not very clear on what uri to specify in the client. I'm using 5.6 release.
For example: Two machines with MasterA, SlaveB on 1 machine, and MasterB, SlaveA on another machine. No Network connectors between Masters and Slaves but network connectors between MasterA and MasterB. I hope that I'm right till this point. What about client uri? I'm currently using nio protocol at the clients like failover:(nio:localhost1:61616,nio:localhost2:61616)?randomize=true. I specify randomize=true to balance the load between the brokers.
Please suggest what client URI should I use? Should I include all brokers URI or just masters URI? Can I still use nio protocol? I prefer to use randomize=true so that load will be balanced.
In the simplest case, the client uri should contain 4 brokers, both pairs of master/slave uris.
For the network connectors, they will need to be prepared to bridge master to master or master to slave, which ever is available.
There is a new masterslave: discovery agent in 5.6 that simplifies the configuration for a networkconnector.
http://activemq.apache.org/networks-of-brokers.html#NetworksofBrokers-MasterSlaveDiscovery