Is it possible to monitor the fair proxy balancer?
grzegorz.nosek at gmail.com
Sat Jun 28 23:54:06 MSD 2008
On sob, cze 28, 2008 at 09:28:45 +0200, Alexander Staubo wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Grzegorz Nosek
> <grzegorz.nosek at gmail.com> wrote:
> > However, there still remains the issue of communication between the load
> > balancer and the outside world, i.e. *how* would you like to be told
> > that a backend has been deemed up/down
> HAProxy -- apologies for having to mention it again, but it's a useful
> template -- has a simple status page similar to Nginx's stub status.
> It comes in HTML and CSV formats, and lists all backends (and
> frontends) and their status (up, down, going down, going up) and a ton
> of metrics (current number of connections, number of bytes transfered,
> error count, retry count, and so on). It can also export the same
> information on a secure domain socket if you don't want to go through
The question wasn't really caused by the perceived impossibility of the
task :) A status page is certainly simple enough (i.e. fits in the nginx
model somewhat), though it has the disadvantage that you have to poll it
periodically. I don't think that a dedicated socket for querying
backends is a good design for nginx, so I'd like to gather ideas about
how to notify the outside world. A log message? Sending a signal
somewhere? An SNMP trap? Every way has its advantages and disadvantages,
so I'd like to pick the one that sucks the least.
> > and *how* would you like to tell
> > nginx that backend 220.127.116.11 is currently down?
> Pardon me for asking a naive question, but to change the list of
> backends, would you not simply edit the config file and do a SIGHUP? I
> would reset whatever internal structures that are kept by the workers,
> but I can't think of anything that's not okay to lose.
Yes. That's the obvious solution but apparently not always acceptable,
especially when you'd want to use an external monitoring system to do
> > - a new option, e.g. max_requests 10 10 20 20 (specifying the number
> > for each backend in the order of server directives)
> That's a horrible syntax and one that is going to cause problems as
> you add or remove backends from the config. A max_requests setting
> belongs on each backend declaration.
Like I wrote in the snipped part, I cannot easily add options to the
server directives (at least without patching nginx or reinventing the
square wheel). I don't like the max_requests idea too, for precisely the
same reason. I presume that means the overloading of weight=X is at
> > So, what say you, is such a feature (amounting to returning 502 errors
> > after a certain amount of concurrent requests is reached) generally
> > desired? If so, how would you like to configure it?
> You should only return an error if a request cannot be served within a
> given timeout, not when all backends are full.
Will have to think about it. This has the potential of busy-looping when
all the backends are indeed full (or down, but then one can just send a
hard error and be done with it). I don't think nginx has a way to be
told "everything is unavailable now, come back to me in a second or
two" or even better "I'll tell you when to ask me again".
More information about the nginx