Fair Proxy Balancer

BJ Clark bjclark at scidept.com
Tue May 6 21:20:20 MSD 2008


You would think that would be the case, but it's not.
EC2 is actually only useful in a sense that you can bring online "n"  
number of servers at any time, and take them offline at any time. You  
can use 1 server one day, 100 servers the next day, 1000 servers 3  
hours later, and be back down to 1 server an hour after that.

The actual performance of said servers can definitely fluctuate.

BJ Clark

On May 6, 2008, at 11:01 AM, Kiril Angov wrote:

> Isn't the point of using Amazon EC2 exactly that you get guarantee
> that your virtual machine will not be affected by normal problems
> related to hosting it on a single machine. I mean they say that they
> have a copy of your virtual machine on more than on server on maybe
> more than one location. I may be wrong here but from what I have read,
> you should not worry about your instance shutting down or slowing down
> drastically because what happens if I only have one instance and I
> reply on that?
> Kiril
> On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 12:44 PM, Rt Ibmer <rtibmx at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Thank you. These are excellent points. In my case all upstream  
>> servers share the same responsibility for the types of requests  
>> that are served. I guess I am looking at 'fair' more as a way to  
>> auto-tune the weighting based on the relative performance of each  
>> upstream.
>> I am hosting within the Amazon EC2 network. Because of fluctuations  
>> in their virtualized environment and underlying systems, it is very  
>> possible to have  some   some backends performing poorly compared  
>> to others.
>> For instance imagine a scenario where I have 3 virtualized servers  
>> running on EC2 that are running as my upstream boxes.  These three  
>> servers may actually be (and are most likely) on different physical  
>> servers. Now assume one of the EC2 servers has a  problem that  
>> affects performance of all virtualized servers that it is hosting  
>> (perhaps it is networking related or perhaps it affects the speed  
>> of the machine).
>> Now my upstream server on that troubled box will be running at a  
>> lot lower level of performance than my other upstreams, and this  
>> will show itself on the bottom line by much higher average ms total  
>> response time (time it takes to connect to upstream and get its  
>> full response) compared to the others.
>> So in my case, I would like to use 'fair' almost as a way to  
>> maximize site performance based on the health of the systems.   
>> Under heavy load I think 'fair' would likely do this as requests  
>> for the slower box would get backed up and get reflected in the  
>> weighting.  But under a light load probably not.  So in that case  
>> 'fair' would still route requests to a server that may take 500ms  
>> longer to reply just because there is no backlog.
>> Anyway I realize that you did not write 'fair' to solve this but  
>> just wanted to provide you with this feedback in case it spurs some  
>> ideas for how to expand it to cover this usage scenario.  Thank you  
>> for this opportunity to provide the feedback and for your great  
>> contributions to the nginx project!
>> ____________________________________________________________________________________
>> Be a better friend, newshound, and
>> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

More information about the nginx mailing list