hi: welcome to take a look at this PR[1]
A new way to set the upstream, it may useful [1] https://github.com/apache/apisix/pull/2935 On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 3:34 PM wei jin <[email protected]> wrote: > Agree, I think it is reasonable and a big feature. > What other people think? > > 黄一天 <[email protected]> 于2020年12月1日周二 下午6:24写道： > >> Hi Community, >> >> >> >> Consider this scenario: >> >> In a single datacenter, there are several cluster nodes(or machines, not >> the node in upstream definition), each node deploys multiple instances as >> head services. All head services are functionally equivalent. Using Apisix >> as the gateway to access all instances. Then we have this logic structure: >> >> In this case, node1-3 can be considered as upstreams, and each upstream >> has N nodes(port1…N) in route configuration. >> >> We found current route configuration may sometimes be unclear and hard to >> manage. Consider: >> >> (1) if one instance was down, to maintain the SLA of the whole system, we >> may pessimistically consider all instances on the same node were down >> either and immediately kick-off the whole node. In this case, we can simply >> remove one "upstream group" in the route. (possibly done by healthcheck) >> >> (2) if one single request had failed, it is safer to make it retry with >> the instance on other nodes, not another instance on the same node. >> (without upstream group, it is a bit difficult to find the right instance >> to retry.) >> >> (3) if we consider node3 as a superior node (has more CPU cores or >> Memory, which leads to higher perf), we expect most of the traffic to be >> forwarded to this node. (In this case, maybe we could just adjust this >> upstream group’s weight) >> >> >> >> What if allow one route to support upstream list, not one upstream? >> >> What do you think? >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> > -- *MembPhis* My GitHub: https://github.com/membphis Apache APISIX: https://github.com/apache/apisix
