Take the 2-minute tour ×
Server Fault is a question and answer site for professional system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I know many variants of this question has been asked already, but I still can't find a good answer to my needs.

What I want to do is setup a few (2 at minimum) VPS's to host my web apps on. I'd like to provide some load balancing (which is pretty easy achievable with let's say Varnish), and relatively high availability - which is my problem.

Using the load balancer (which I'd need to host on one of VPS's) introduces a single point of failure, which almost as bad as having just one machine to serve the content.

http://i.stack.imgur.com/lFafj.png

And AFAIK DNS round-robin method not only is a bad idea for load-balancing, but also does not provide a fail-over mechanism. If one of servers goes down, some people (with cached DNS IP) will still try to connect to the unavailable server. And forget short TTL - this is not the correct solution.

http://i.stack.imgur.com/mTLRf.png

One very important thing to consider: I want to have my VPS's divided across many datacenters, so if electricity or ISP fails in one datacenter, the website won't go down.

The only 2 solutions I can think of is either rely on dns round robin (and in case of server failure at least serve the content to some percentage of users untill recovery), or buy a dedicated server in a datacenter well prepared for blackout and equipped with several internet connections (which is insanely expensive compared to renting even 10 VPS's).

So the question is: What is the correct way to avoid single point of failure while having several load balanced VPS's?

Please excuse the images. They're just as-basic-as-possible examples of what I meant.

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

up vote 3 down vote accepted

Notes:

How much are you willing to spend, I've yet to see someone relying on VPSs and really wanting to spend the money for a datacenter failure case.

Regarding your drawings:

The fail in the first one is true if (and only if) the load balancer is a single machine, if it's a single system (as in a system built from multiple hosts) it's not true anymore.

SPA (Shortest possible answer):

Really short answer: You need to get a service IP that is available in all your locations. And set up BGP routing.

A little bit longer: Typically this is done by using BGP and announcing the IP on 2 different locations. You can set it up in a way that the IPs are announce all the time but one has a lower preference than the other. This way under normal circumstances you traffic will go to only one site, if that fails the BGP route is dropped and traffic switches over to the IP still available.

We have a few setups similiar to this, typical layout is:

(per location):

  • 2 loadbalancers

    This is the place where BGP also runs and announces it's IPs. Usually Quagga and some IPVS setup (we use keepalived)

  • n servers to handle the load (FE)

The failure cases:

  • Any 1 Loadbalancer (at a single site) fails

    • Handled by keepalived, the other LB will just continue it's work
  • Any n-k of the FEs fail (k being the number of FEs that can fail without us experiencing issues)

    • Handled by the LBs, a check will remove them from and they won't receive any more traffic
  • n-(k+1) FEs fail (at a single site)

    • Handled by BGP. We will kill the BGP Session on the LBs at the site where too many FEs have failed. The other location takes over
  • any major outage at a single site

    • Handled by BGP, the BGP session will be dropped and the other location jumps in

I'm sorry I'm not in the mood right now to go further into the details of doing this manually. My guess is you'll be better (and cheaper) of by renting a loadbalancer service that will do the magic for you. I've read that Amazon provides these but I don't know if their usage is possible without using the rest of their infrastructure.

share|improve this answer
    
Not really the answer i wanted to hear, but it sure does answer my question. Btw. I think it's kind of a problem in the way the WWW is built if it's impossible to do something as basic without having to spend a lot of money. –  user500921 Sep 19 '11 at 11:36

I'm trying to achieve exactly the same thing, if you find a good solution please post ! :)

What I got so far is Amazon EC2 "Elastic IP" (and also "Elastic Load Balaning") which can be routed to instances across different datacenters in one region. (Ironically they once had outage that took down all the datacenters in one region).

Also I've googled this one: http://www.fibercloud.com/MatrixTechnology - looks like they also provide what you are looking for. (I myself didn't dare asking about pricing :)

So far I see that the ultimative answer is managing own BGP but at least for me it's out of question.

For DNS option I'd generally agree that it's not perfect because of some unavoidable caching, mainly inside end-user browsers. I also agree that low TTL is not perfect since I think that having low TTL for small sites will cause minor slow-down since for most users recursive DNS resolvers will not have it in cache. (Though worth mentioning that google.com have TTL of 300 seconds). BTW, AFAIK browsers will failover to second IP advertised in DNS, once they time-out connecting to first one so it's won't completely fail but rather I'd call it degrade.

I'm thinking about combining both - using 2 VPS providers with each one hosting 2 hosts - between hosts at the same datacenter use IP failover, and across datacenters use DNS (normally both IPs advertised, with low TTL, and once one of them fails, failed IP removed).

You should be aware of split-brain case where both sites fight to remove each other IP since they think each other as unavailable. I think I've found a good solution for it - run your DNS server at each host, so upon split brain each site removes the other only from it's own DNS server thus user who is able to reach one host will also get DNS resolved to the very that accessible (he reached it, right ?) host.

If having 4 hosts is too expensive, I think that it's better to use just IP failover at some reliable provider and not rely on DNS alone.

Regards, Alex

share|improve this answer
    
Two additional points - VPS hostings sometimes provide their own Load Balancers, and those probably are NOT single point of failure since they most likely are redundant. Also single datacenter is not necessarily single point of failure as in normal datacenter everything is well backed up - from electricity, and HVAC to ISP connections. –  Alex Oct 21 '11 at 14:32

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.