I have an two container in same namespace. Service-A & Service-B.
And in my case, i want to talk to Service-B from Service-A. Through RestTemplate, i am making post call for communication like below.
public Response fetchData(Request request) {
return restTemplate.postForEntity("http://Service-B:8080/api", request, Response.class).getBody();
}
It is working fine in my lower region as i have only one POD for Service-B. My doubt here is, if i have more PODS (lets say three POD) in Production for handling load. Will the load balancing happen between PODS, if i use service url instead of router url?
If using kubernetes service then kube-proxy component provides load balancing at L4 layer via linux iptables.
Kube proxy running in IPVS mode provides least conns, locality, weighted, persistence based load balancing
Kube proxy running in userspace or iptables mode provides round robin load balancing
But if you need advanced loadbalancing at L7 layer then you need to use ingress or router.
https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/services-networking/#the-gory-details-of-virtual-ips
Related
I've been looking into Kubernetes networking, more specifically, how to serve HTTPS users the most efficient.
I was watching this talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Omvgd7Hg1I and from 22:18 he explains what the problem is with a load balancer that is not pod aware. Now, how they solve this in kubernetes is by letting the nodes also act as a 'router' and letting the node pass the request on to another node. (explained at 22:46). This does not seem very efficient, but when looking around SoundCloud (https://developers.soundcloud.com/blog/how-soundcloud-uses-haproxy-with-kubernetes-for-user-facing-traffic) actually seems to do something similar to this but with NodePorts. They say that the overhead costs less than creating a better load balancer.
From what I have read an option might be using an ingress controller. Making sure that there is not more than one ingress controller per node, and routing the traffic to the specific nodes that have an ingress controller. That way there will not be any traffic re-routing needed. However, this does add another layer of routing.
This information is all from 2017, so my question is: is there any pod aware load balancer out there, or is there some other method that does not involve sending the http request and response over the network twice?
Thank you in advance,
Hendrik
EDIT:
A bit more information about my use case:
There is a bare-metal setup with kubernetes. The firewall load balances the incomming data between two HAProxy instances. These HAProxy instances do ssl termination and forward the traffic to a few sites. This includes an exchange setup, a few internal IIS sites and a nginx server for a static web app. The idea is to transform the app servers into kubernetes.
Now my main problem is how to get the requests from HAProxy into kubernetes. I see a few options:
Use the SoundCloud setup. The infrastructure could stay almost the same, the HAProxy server can still operate the way they do now.
I could use an ingress controller on EACH node in the kubernetes cluster and have the firewall load balance between the nodes. I believe it is possible to forward traffic from the ingress controller to server outside the cluster, e.g. exchange.
Some magic load balancer that I do not know about that is pod aware and able to operate outside of the kubernetes cluster.
Option 1 and 2 are relatively simple and quite close in how they work, but they do come with a performance penalty. This is the case when the node that the requests gets forwarded to by the firewall does not have the required pod running, or if another pod is doing less work. The request will get forwarded to another node, thus, using the network twice.
Is this just the price you pay when using Kubernetes, or is there something that I am missing?
How traffic heads to pods depend on whether a managed cluster is used.
Almost all cloud providers can forward traffic in a cloud-native way in their managed K8s clusters. First, you can a managed cluster with some special network settings (e.g. vpc-native cluster of GKE). Then, the only thing you need to do is to create a LoadBalancer typed Service to expose your workload. You can also create Ingresses for your L7 workloads, they are going to be handled by provided IngressControllers (e.g. ALB of AWS).
In an on-premise cluster without any cloud provider(OpenStack or vSphere), the only way to expose workloads is NodePort typed Service. It doesn't mean you can't improve it.
If your cluster is behind reverse proxies (the SoundCloud case), setting externalTrafficPolicy: Local to Services could break traffic forwarding among work nodes. When traffic received through NodePorts, they are forwarded to local Pods or dropped if Pods reside on other nodes. Reserve proxy will mark these NodePort as unhealthy in the backend health check and reject to forward traffic to them. Another choice is to use topology-aware service routing. In this case, local Pods have priorities and traffic is still forwarded between node when no local Pods matched.
For IngressController in on-prem clusters, it is a little different. You may have some work nodes that have EIP or public IP. To expose HTTP(S) services, an IngressController usually deployed on those work nodes through DaemeaSet and HostNetwork such that clients access the IngressController via the well-known ports and EIP of nodes. These work nodes regularly don't accept other workloads (e.g. infra node in OpenShift) and one more forward on the Pod network is needed. You can also deploy the IngressController on all work nodes as well as other workloads, so traffic could be forwarded to a closer Pod if the IngressController supports topology-aware service routing although it can now.
Hope it helps!
We have two types of services that we run on AWS EKS:
external-facing services which we expose through an application-level load balancer using aws-alb-ingress-controller
internal-facing services which we use both directly through the service name (for EKS applications) and through an internal application-level loadbalancer also using aws-alb-ingress-controller (for non-EKS applications)
I would like to understand the performance implications of choosing Nodeport, ClusterIP or Headless Service for both the external and internal services. I have the setup working with all three options.
If I understanding the networking correctly, it seems that a Headless Service requires less hops and would hence be (slightly) faster? This article however seems to suggest that a Headless Service would not be properly load balanced when called directly. Is this correct? And would this still hold when called through the external (or internal) ALB?
Is there any difference in performance for NodePort vs ClusterIP?
Finally, what is the most elegant/performant way of using internal services from outside of the cluster (where we don't have access to the Kubernetes DNS) but within the same VPC? Would it be to use ClusterIp and specify the IP address in the service definition so it remains stable? Or are there better options?
I've put more detailed info on the each of the connection forwarding types and how the services are forwarded down under the headings belowfor context to my answers.
If I understanding the networking correctly, it seems that a Headless Service requires less hops and would hence be (slightly) faster?
Not substantially faster. The "extra hop" is the packet traversing local lookup tables which it traverses anyway so not a noticeable difference. The destination pod is still going to be the same number of actual network hops away.
If you have 1000's of services that run on a single pod and could be headless then you might use that to limit the number of iptables NAT rules and speed rule processing up (see iptables v ipvs below).
Is < a headless service not load balanced > correct? And would this still hold when called through the external (or internal) ALB?
Yes it is correct, the client (or ALB) would need to implement the load balancing across the Pod IP's.
Is there any difference in performance for NodePort vs ClusterIP?
A NodePort has a possible extra network hop from the entry node to the node running the pod. Assuming the ClusterIP ranges are routed to the correct node (and routed at all)
If you happen to be using a service type: LoadBalancer this behaviour can change by setting [.spec.externalTrafficPolicy to Local][https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/services-networking/service/#aws-nlb-support] which means traffic will only be directed to a local pod.
Finally, what is the most elegant/performant way of using internal services from outside of the cluster
I would say use the AWS ALB Ingress Controller with the alb.ingress.kubernetes.io/target-type: ip annotation. The k8s config from the cluster will be pushed out to the ALB via the ingress controller and address pods directly without traversing any connection forwarding or extra hops. All cluster reconfig will be automatically pushed out.
There is a little bit of latency for config to get to the ALB compared to cluster kube-proxy reconfiguration. Something like a rolling deployment might not be as seamless as the updates arrive after a pod is gone. The ALB's are equipped to handle the outage themselves, eventually.
Kubernetes Connection Forwarding
There is a kube-proxy process running on each node which manages how and where connections are forwared. There are 3 options for how kube-proxy does that: Userspace proxy, iptables or IPVS. Most clusters will be on iptables and that will cater for the vast majority of use cases.
Userspace proxy
The forwarding is via a process that runs in userspace to terminate and forward the connections. It's slow. It's unlikely you are using it, don't use it.
iptables
iptables forwards connections in kernel via NAT, which is fast. This is most common setup and will cover 90% of use cases. New connections are shared evenly between all nodes running pods for a service.
IPVS
Runs in kernel, it is fast and scalable. If you shift a traffic to a large number of apps this might improve the forwarding performance. It also supports different service load balancing modes:
- rr: round-robin
- lc: least connection (smallest number of open connections)
- dh: destination hashing
- sh: source hashing
- sed: shortest expected delay
- nq: never queue
Access to services
My explanations are iptables based as I haven't done much detailed work with ipvs clusters yet. I'm gonna handwave the ipvs complexity away and say it's basically the same as iptables, just with faster rule processing as the number of rules increases on huge clusters (i.e number of pods/services/network policies).
I'm also ignoring the userspace proxy in the description, due to the overhead just don't use it.
The basic thing to understand is a "Service ClusterIP" is a virtual construct in the cluster that only exists as rule for where the traffic should go. Every node maintains this rule mapping of all ClusterIP/port to PodIP/port (via kube-proxy)
Nodeport
ALB routes to any node, The node/nodeport forwards the connection to a pod handling the service. This could be a remote pod which would involve sending traffic back out over the "wire".
ALB > wire > Node > Kernel Forward to SVC ( > wire if remote node ) > Pod
ClusterIP
Using the ClusterIP for direct access depends on the Service cluster IP ranges being routed to the correct node. Sometimes they aren't routed at all.
ALB > wire > Node > Kernel Forward to SVC > Pod
The "Kernel Forward to SVC" step can be skipped with an ALB annotation without using a headless service.
Headless Service
Again, Pod IP's aren't always addressable from outside the cluster depending on the network setup. You should be fine on EKS.
ALB > wire > Node > Pod
Note
I'll suffix this with requests are probably looking at < 1ms of additional latency if a connection is forwarded to a node in a VPC. Enhanced networking instances at the low end of that. Inter availability-zone comms might be a tad higher than intra-AZ. If you happened to have a geographically separated cluster it might increase the importance of controlling traffic flow. For example having a tunnelled calico network that actually jumped over a number of real networks.
what is the most elegant/performant way of using internal services from outside of the cluster (where we don't have access to the Kubernetes DNS) but within the same VPC?
For this to achieve, I think you should have a look at a Service Mesh. For example, Istio(https://istio.io). It handles your internal service calls manually so that the call doesn't have to go through Kubernetes DNS. Please have a look at Istio's docs (https://istio.io/docs) for more info.
Also, you can have a look at Istio at EKS (https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/opensource/getting-started-istio-eks)
Headless service will not have any load balancing at L4 layer but if you use it behind an ALB you are getting load balancing at L7 layer.
Nodeport internally uses cluster IP but because your request may randomly be routed to a pod on another host when it could have been routed to a pod on the same host, avoiding that extra hop out to the network. Nodeport is generally a bad idea for production usage.
IMHO best way to access internal services from outside of the cluster will be using ingress.
You can use nginx as ingress controller where you deploy the nginx ingress controller on your cluster and expose it via a LoadBalancer type service using ALB. Then you can configure path or host based routing using ingress api to route traffic between backend kubernetes services.
Can someone explain the load balancing mechanism in AWS ECS for me? I clearly understand how inter service communication is handled within a kubernetes cluster, there is an automatic load balancer applied when accessing a defined internal service. This means Container/Pod scalability is simply predefined:
when a Pod-1A from within the service-A is accessing another Pod-1B
from within a different Service-B (Service to Service communication)
this call is automatically load balanced to this Pod-1B from
service-B.
So with service Registry in kubernetes we simply need to define Services and communication is automatically load balanced to the available Pods within the services.
So assuming that Pods are equal to Tasks and Services are equal to Services in AWS ECS, how is this load balancing mechanism handled wihtin ECS? Do we really need to apply an Elastic Load balancer at the task/pod level manually compared to kubernetes? (So that we need to define manually a load balancer for every service, to make this service and its tasks with its container scalable?)
Edit:
What is the reason in AWS ECS, to define a service which instantiates
multiple replicas of a Task, when no load balancer has been defined?
Will the traffic be routed only to the same Task replica (Container)
all the time? (No scaling at all?)
Please note, this is not about access from external ip addresses, where an ingress controller is needed. I am talking about microservices where each service exposes its own http api to communicate with other services within the cluster (internal microservice Application), typically there is an API Gateway handling external traffic (ingress controller).
I want to control/intercept the load balancer traffic using Istio. Istio gives you the ability to add a mixer on a service level but I want to add some code on a higher level just before the request traffic rules get executed.
Thus instead of adding actions per service I want to have some actions executed just after the request was received from the load balancer.
As per official Istio Documentation istio-ingressgateway is the main entry point for exposing nested services outside the cluster. Therefore, Istio Gateway collects information about incoming or outgoing HTTP/TCP connections and also specifies the set of ports that should be exposed, the type of protocol to use, etc. Gateway can be applied on the corresponded Envoy sidecar in the Pod through the labels.
Keep in mind that Istio Gateway operates within L4-L6 layers of load balancing and it's not aware of network source provider.
More information about Istio load balancing architecture you can find here.
I need to some advice regarding how to deploy a high traffic mobile app back-end using kubernetes. This deployment should support HA at-least. We have plans to run a DR site as well, but scope of this question does not include a DR.
We currently use hardware load-balancers to route incoming traffic to different IP addresses attached to different boxes. Each such box runs a nginx instance as a reverse proxy which also act as the https terminator. After https termination, traffic is directed to an apache web-server. Each box has one apacher server receiving all traffic from nginx running in the same box.
We want to introduce kubernetes to this setup so that we can utilize boxes better. Our traffic patterns are highly fluctuating and we believe kubernetes can help us utilize boxes in a more efficient manner.
My current plan is as follows:
-- Keep the hardware load balancer to route incoming traffic to different boxes. (this may not be needed but getting rid of HLB could become very political).
-- Run a kubenetes cluster utilizing all available boxes
-- pack apache + our app as docker image and deploy this image on docker container which in tern is run inside pods in the kubenetes cluster
-- setup ingress to accept external traffic, do https termination and load balance to above pods. A simple round robin or random load balancing algo is fine as our back ends are stateless
Does this sound right? Are there any alternatives? In the above case, where does the ingress controller run?
Your plan seems right. You can either pack apache with the code but it shall be better to keep it separate so that they can contact each other and any one of the version upgrades won't be dependent upon this one.
Also, the hardware load balancer will tickle the traffic on to the ingress which shall further bring it down to the k8s cluster and eventually on the pods.
The ingress controller runs inside the cluster. I guess you're looking to run kuberentes on-premise with your existing hardware. To use the existing hardware loadbalancer outside of kubernetes you could run the nginx ingress controller as a daemonset so that there'd be one instance on each node and expose it via HostPort so that each is exposed on the same port. Or if there are lots of nodes then you'd want to just use a Deployment. Then you'd would want to use NodePort so that Kuberentes would send the traffic to a node where an ingress controller pod runs.
Another alternative would be to expose the nginx ingress controller through LoadBalancer - to do that you'd need to integrate your loadbalancer with kubernetes using something like https://hackernoon.com/metallb-a-load-balancer-for-bare-metal-kubernetes-clusters-f7320fde52f2
Alternatively, you wouldn't necessarily have to use ingress. You could just run nginx in the cluster and expose it via NodePort.
It's not clear to me that you'd need apache http server in your container. I guess it depends how you are using it currently.