I have a Glassfish v2u2 cluster with two instances and I want to to fail-over between them. Every document that I read on this subject says that I should use a load balancer in front of Glassfish, like Apache httpd. In this scenario failover works, but I again have a single point of failure.
Is Glassfish able to do that fail-over without a load balancer in front?
The we solved this is that we have two IP addresses which both respond to the URL. The DNS provider (DNS Made Easy) will round robin between the two. Setting the timeout low will ensure that if one server fails the other will answer. When one server stops responding, DNS Made Easy will only send the other host as the server to respond to this URL. You will have to trust the DNS provider, but you can buy service with extremely high availability of the DNS lookup
As for high availability, you can have cluster setup which allows for session replication so that the user won't loose more than potentially one request which fails.
Hmm.. JBoss can do failover without a load balancer according to the docs (http://docs.jboss.org/jbossas/jboss4guide/r4/html/cluster.chapt.html) Chapter 16.1.2.1. Client-side interceptor.
As far as I know glassfish the cluster provides in-memory session replication between nodes. If I use Suns Glassfish Enterprise Application Server I can use HADB which promisses 99.999% of availability.
No, you can't do it at the application level.
Your options are:
Round-robin DNS - expose both your servers to the internet and let the client do the load-balancing - this is quite attractive as it will definitely enable fail-over.
Use a different layer 3 load balancing system - such as "Windows network load balancing" , "Linux Network Load balancing" or the one I wrote called "Fluffy Linux cluster"
Use a separate load-balancer that has a failover hot spare
In any of these cases you still need to ensure that your database and session data etc, are available and in sync between the members of your cluster, which in practice is much harder.
Related
Hi I am new to Marklogic and Apache. I have been provided task to use apache as loadbalancer for our Marklogic cluster of 3 machines. Marklogic cluster is currently running on Linux servers.
How can we achieve this? Any information regarding this would be helpful.
You could use mod_proxy_balancer. How you configure it depends what MarkLogic client you would like to use. If you would like to use the Java Client API, please follow the second example here to allow apache to generate stickiness cookies. If you would like to use XCC, please configure it to use the ML-Server-generated or backend-generated "SessionID" cookie.
The difference here is that XCC uses sessions whereas the Java Client API builds on the REST API which is stateless, so there are no sessions. However, even in the Java Client API when you use multi-request transactions, that imposes state for the duration of that transaction so the load balancer needs a way to route requests during that transaction to the correct node in the MarkLogic cluster. The stickiness cookie will be resent by the Java Client API with every request that uses a Transaction so the load balancer can maintain that stickiness for requests related to that transaction.
As always, do some testing of your configuration to make sure you got it right. Properly configuring apache plugins is an advanced skill. Since you are new to apache, your best hope of ensuring you got it right is checking with an HTTP monitoring tool like WireShark to look at the HTTP traffic from your application to MarkLogic Server to make sure things are going to the correct node in the cluster as expected.
Note that even with the client APIs (Java, Node.js) its not always obvious or explicit at the language API layer what might cause a session to be created. Explicitly creating multi statement transactions definately will, but other operations may do so as well. If you are using the same connection for UI (browser) and API (REST or XCC) then the browser app is likely to be doing things that create session state.
The safest, but least flexable configuration is "TCP Session Affinity". If they are supported they will eliminate most concerns related to load balancing. Cookie Session Affinity relies on guarenteeing that the load balencer uses the correct cookie. Not all code is equal. I have had cases where it the load balancer didn't always use the cookie provided. Changing the configuration to "Load Balancer provided Cookie Affinity" fixed that.
None of this is needed if all your communications are stateless at the TCP layer, the HTTP layer and the app layer. The later cannot be inferred by the server.
Another conern is if your app or middle tier is co-resident with other apps or the same app connecting to the same load balancer and port. That can be difficult to make sure there are no 'crossed wires' . When ML gets a request it associates its identity with the client IP and port. Even without load balencers, most modern HTTP and TCP client libraries implement socket caching. A great perfomrance win, but a hidden source of subtle random severe errors if the library or app are sharing "cookie jars" (not uncomnon). A TCP and Cookie Jar cache used by different application contexts can end up sending state information from one unrelated app in the same process to another. Mostly this is in middle tier app servers that may simply pass on requests from the first tier without domain knowledge, presuming that relying on the low level TCP libraries to "do the right thing" ... They are doing the right thing -- for the use case the library programmers had in mind -- don't assume that your case is the one the library authors assumed. The symptoms tend to be very rare but catastrophic problems with transaction failures and possibly data corruption
and security problems (at an application layer) because the server cannot tell the difference between 2 connections from the same middle tier.
Sometimes a better strategy is to load balance between the first tier and the middle tier, and directly connect from the middle tier to MarkLogic.
Especially if caching is done at the load balancer. Its more common for caching to be useful between the middle tier and the client then the middle tier and the server. This is also more analogous to the classic 3 tier architecture used with RDBMS's .. where load balancing is between the client and business logic tiers not between business logic and database.
I am trying to setup a distributed system based on current spring-cloud release (meaning mostly Netflix OSS) using the following components
1 or more cloud config servers
1 or more Eureka servers
1 or more services using Eureka and Config Server clients
The setup above is easy enough to get going however once you start looking into setting up so that configuration changes in the cloud Config servers automatically trigger changes in the values of the actual clients, things start getting more complicated.
It is my understanding that for such a feature to work one should introduce spring-cloud-bus clients to the services which in turn will use, currently the only supported implementation, rabbitmq servers (the actual rabbitmq binaries and not some spring-boot app like eureka or Config servers) to allow change events in the Config server to be propagated to the clients automatically.
It sounds counterintuitive to setup such a system and have to hardcode addresses to rabbitmq servers in the clients (even if one will be keeping the amount of rabbitmq servers more or less static).
How is one supposed to register rabbitmq server instances in the Eureka service discovery server(s) to allow for clients to find them without having to have any knowledge about their location prior to startup?
I cannot seem to find any documentation on how this is done given that rabbitmq is not a spring-cloud component. In fact very little documentation seems to exist regarding on how the rabbitmq + eureka + spring-cloud-bus should be setup together.
I know that I am on a VERY old question, even though I think it worth a comment for people who read this in the future.
Most of the cloud services, lets take AWS as an example, have an Elastic IP solution - so you can configure IPs for RabbitMQ servers, and the IPs always belong to the RabbitMQ, no matter whether the instances change. You can re-attach the Elastic IP to different instances.
It works nearly the same with Elastic Load Balancer, which keeps its IP, so you could configure your microservices to a specific IP using Spring Cloud Config Server - and scale the RabbitMQ instances without a need to worry about configuration change.
We have WCF service X: deployed on server A and Server B, host address:
http://127.0.0.1:8777/ServiceX/
And we load balance the two servers. We accesss the service via http://myappserver/ServiceX
We need to use per-session mode, and we set [reliable sessions] as true:
We don't find any issue till now based on testing. But the below linked MSDN article says that Do not use reliable sessions for Load Balancing with the WSHttp Binding? Please can someone give more details? Thanks a lot.
WCF Load Balancing http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms730128.aspx
Reliable Messaging means all your messages from your established client reach the same endpoint behind any intermediaries like routers and load balancers.
Load balancing means your calls will be distributed across all nodes as the load balancer sees fit.
Those two goals are mutually exclusive. You can have one or the other, not both.
I have not had time to try this myself yet, but I found this old blog entry (https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/drnick/2007/07/13/sticky-sessions/):
This division according to groups would allow a feature like reliable messaging to work because the same server would be used to process all of the messages in the reliable session. The feature that this division method represents is typically called “sticky sessions” or some other phrase for affinitization in the load balancer.
Given that you mention that your firewall supports sticky sessions, I suspect/hope you will be fine.
In what scenario does it make sense to put a hardware load-balancer in front of the apache servers that are running mod_cluster? Logically it seems like mod_cluster is doing all the load balancing. Is mod_cluster required if you're doing Jboss clustering?
Example Architecture
(1) website www.foo.bar being served from:
(4) Apache Servers Running mod_cluster
(2) JBoss App Servers - 1 Cluster
Benefits of a load balancer:
If one server goes down, some use heartbeats and then do not send traffic to dead servers
Downsides of clustering:
In clustering, if a component breaks down, it kills every server.
Benefits of a cluster:
More power to serve webpages
All on one disk
Downsides of a load balancer:
Costly hardware (or free software)
If the load balancer dies, everything dies.
Feel free to add to this answer.
Can someone explain to me how high-availability ("HA") works for a web application ... because I assume HA means that there exist no single-point-of-failure.
However, even if a load balancer is used- isn't that the single point of failure?
I have found this article on the subject:
http://www.tenereillo.com/GSLBPageOfShame.htm
Basically if you do not require long lasting sticky sessions you can configure your DNS servers to return multiple A records (IP addresses) for your website.
Web browsers are smart enough to try all the addresses until they find one that works.
In simple words high availability can be defined as running a system 24*7 without a downtime even if there are hardware and software failures. In other way a fault tolerance application. This helps ensure uninterrupted use of the application for it’s intended users.
Read more on High Availability Deployment Architecture
It works the following way that you setup two HA Proxy servers with heartbeat, so when one fails (stops responding to queries), it's being removed from the cluster.
Requests from HA Proxy can be forwarded to web servers in round robin fashion, and if one web server fails, HA Proxy servers do not try to contact it until it's alive.
Web servers are storing all dynamic information in database, which is replicated across two MySQL instances.
As you can see, HA Proxy and Cluster MySQL (or simply MySQL replication) as well IP Clustering here is the key.
Sure it is when operated alone. Usual highly available setup includes 2 or more load balancers running in cluster in either active/active or active/passive configuration. To further increase the availability you can have 2 different Internet Service Providers (or geo distributed datacenters) each running a pair of clustered load balancers. Then you configure DNS A record resolving to 2 distinct public IP addresses which guarantees round-robin processing splitting DNS requests evenly (CloudFlare is very fast and reliable at this). There's also possibility to return IP address of datacenter closest to your originating geo location by using something like PowerDNS dnsdist
This is what big players do to make their services highly available.
Please read https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E23824_01/html/821-1453/gkkky.html for more clearity. Actually both load balancer uses same vip(Virtual IP Address. https://techterms.com/definition/vip).
HA architecture is a entire field and multiple books were written on it, so it is hard to answer in a short paragraph.
To sum up the ideal situation, you would be using multiple servers, interconnected to a layer of multiple load balancers. The nodes and LB will be located in a few different data centers, and connected to different network backbone. Ideally the data centers will be located all over the world.
In short, all component will have redundancy, including the load balancers.
For a starting point, see Wikipedia for High Availability Cluster