Re: balance source based on a X-Forwarded-For
Assuming this feature does what I think, then it's particularly useful for scenarios like mine where stickiness on host is used to group users on the same physical box. I've got a video conference app that requires users on the same box to correctly multiplex video streams and provide push notifications to groups of users associated with one another. There are other ways to group users, of course, but our app uses hosts to create non-overlapping usernames (i.e. joe @ foo.blah.com is different than j...@blah.blah.com). Benoit, thanks! I'll try this patch today when I get to the office. -Jeff John L. Singleton wrote: It's all in little gains, we have some site like example.fr, example.com, sub.example.fr that in fact runs to the same directory. Doing this (the balance on host header) help the efficiency of the whole system, the 'use_domain_only' is just a potential small gain but if a small bit of code can potentially reduce the backend load why not ? As for the apache instance with virtual hosting, i don't see your point here. Our backend server are apache server, with mod_rewrite based virtualhost to allow easier update of the domain to directory mapping and an application servers. There is file caching on the system side, on the application server side and just doing that reduce by two to three the average response time of a page. Ah, okay, I see. Thanks for the clarification. Caching is where I saw something like this coming in handy---my other comment was something like, caching aside, why would we care how the requests are distributed over instances where users are likely to not use all of the domains/tlds? Like, if I am reading the english version of a page, I likely speak English and won't do something like flip over to the French version, thusly I would never get to take advantage of this option. But in the case of caching assets, yes, I do see the point. Neat. John L. Singleton jsing...@gmail.com On Mar 29, 2009, at 1:33 PM, benoit wrote: It's all in little gains, we have some site like example.fr, example.com, sub.example.fr that in fact runs to the same directory. Doing this (the balance on host header) help the efficiency of the whole system, the 'use_domain_only' is just a potential small gain but if a small bit of code can potentially reduce the backend load why not ? As for the apache instance with virtual hosting, i don't see your point here. Our backend server are apache server, with mod_rewrite based virtualhost to allow easier update of the domain to directory mapping and an application servers. There is file caching on the system side, on the application server side and just doing that reduce by two to three the average response time of a page. John L. Singleton a écrit : I'm a little mystified as to the usefulness of this as well. I mean, what does hashing the domain name solve that just balancing back to a bunch of Apache instances with virtual hosting turned on doesn't? Are you saying that you have domains like en.example.com, fr.example.com and you want them all to be sticky to the same backend server when they balance? If that's the case, I could see that being useful if the site in question were doing some sort of expensive per-user asset generation that was being cached on the server. Is this what you are talking about? John L. Singleton jsing...@gmail.com mailto:jsing...@gmail.com On Mar 29, 2009, at 9:05 AM, Jeffrey 'jf' Lim wrote: On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 8:02 PM, Benoit maver...@maverick.eu.org mailto:maver...@maverick.eu.org wrote: diff -ru haproxy-1.3.15.7/doc/configuration.txt haproxy-1.3.15.7-cur/doc/configuration.txt --- haproxy-1.3.15.7/doc/configuration.txt 2008-12-04 11:29:13.0 +0100 +++ haproxy-1.3.15.7-cur/doc/configuration.txt 2009-02-24 16:17:19.0 +0100 @@ -788,6 +788,19 @@ balance url_param param [check_post [max_wait]] + header The Http Header specified in argument will be looked up in + each HTTP request. + + With the Host header name, an optionnal use_domain_only + parameter is available, for reducing the hash algorithm to + the main domain part, eg for haproxy.1wt.eu, only 1wt + will be taken into consideration. + I'm not so sure how balancing based on a hash of the Host header would be useful. How would this be useful? I would see an application for balancing on perhaps other headers (like xff as mentioned), but for Host... I dunno... (so basically what I'm saying is, is the code for the 'use_domain_only' bit useful? can it be left out?) -jf -- In the meantime, here is your PSA: It's so hard to write a graphics driver that open-sourcing it would not help. -- Andrew Fear, Software Product Manager, NVIDIA Corporation http://kerneltrap.org/node/7228
Re: balance source based on a X-Forwarded-For
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 8:02 PM, Benoit maver...@maverick.eu.org wrote: diff -ru haproxy-1.3.15.7/doc/configuration.txt haproxy-1.3.15.7-cur/doc/configuration.txt --- haproxy-1.3.15.7/doc/configuration.txt 2008-12-04 11:29:13.0 +0100 +++ haproxy-1.3.15.7-cur/doc/configuration.txt 2009-02-24 16:17:19.0 +0100 @@ -788,6 +788,19 @@ balance url_param param [check_post [max_wait]] + header The Http Header specified in argument will be looked up in + each HTTP request. + + With the Host header name, an optionnal use_domain_only + parameter is available, for reducing the hash algorithm to + the main domain part, eg for haproxy.1wt.eu, only 1wt + will be taken into consideration. + I'm not so sure how balancing based on a hash of the Host header would be useful. How would this be useful? I would see an application for balancing on perhaps other headers (like xff as mentioned), but for Host... I dunno... (so basically what I'm saying is, is the code for the 'use_domain_only' bit useful? can it be left out?) -jf -- In the meantime, here is your PSA: It's so hard to write a graphics driver that open-sourcing it would not help. -- Andrew Fear, Software Product Manager, NVIDIA Corporation http://kerneltrap.org/node/7228
Re: balance source based on a X-Forwarded-For
Jeffrey 'jf' Lim a écrit : On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 8:02 PM, Benoit maver...@maverick.eu.org wrote: diff -ru haproxy-1.3.15.7/doc/configuration.txt haproxy-1.3.15.7-cur/doc/configuration.txt --- haproxy-1.3.15.7/doc/configuration.txt 2008-12-04 11:29:13.0 +0100 +++ haproxy-1.3.15.7-cur/doc/configuration.txt 2009-02-24 16:17:19.0 +0100 @@ -788,6 +788,19 @@ balance url_param param [check_post [max_wait]] + header The Http Header specified in argument will be looked up in + each HTTP request. + + With the Host header name, an optionnal use_domain_only + parameter is available, for reducing the hash algorithm to + the main domain part, eg for haproxy.1wt.eu, only 1wt + will be taken into consideration. + I'm not so sure how balancing based on a hash of the Host header would be useful. How would this be useful? I would see an application for balancing on perhaps other headers (like xff as mentioned), but for Host... I dunno... (so basically what I'm saying is, is the code for the 'use_domain_only' bit useful? can it be left out?) -jf Well, at least it's usefull for our business, it's why it's here :) It's aimed at a shared hosting environmen, with multiple host entry pointing to differents web sites. The objective was to maximise caching efficiency and response times by 'sticking' a site to a backend server. The use_domain_only was here to reduce the hashing to the most significative part and help with site using many tld for language selection.
Re: balance source based on a X-Forwarded-For
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 07:46:05PM +0200, benoit wrote: Jeffrey 'jf' Lim a écrit : On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 8:02 PM, Benoit maver...@maverick.eu.org wrote: diff -ru haproxy-1.3.15.7/doc/configuration.txt haproxy-1.3.15.7-cur/doc/configuration.txt --- haproxy-1.3.15.7/doc/configuration.txt 2008-12-04 11:29:13.0 +0100 +++ haproxy-1.3.15.7-cur/doc/configuration.txt 2009-02-24 16:17:19.0 +0100 @@ -788,6 +788,19 @@ balance url_param param [check_post [max_wait]] + header The Http Header specified in argument will be looked up in + each HTTP request. + + With the Host header name, an optionnal use_domain_only + parameter is available, for reducing the hash algorithm to + the main domain part, eg for haproxy.1wt.eu, only 1wt + will be taken into consideration. + I'm not so sure how balancing based on a hash of the Host header would be useful. How would this be useful? I would see an application for balancing on perhaps other headers (like xff as mentioned), but for Host... I dunno... (so basically what I'm saying is, is the code for the 'use_domain_only' bit useful? can it be left out?) -jf Well, at least it's usefull for our business, it's why it's here :) It's aimed at a shared hosting environmen, with multiple host entry pointing to differents web sites. The objective was to maximise caching efficiency and response times by 'sticking' a site to a backend server. The use_domain_only was here to reduce the hashing to the most significative part and help with site using many tld for language selection. BTW Benoit, be careful, you left some fprintf() in your patch. Regards, Willy
Re: balance source based on a X-Forwarded-For
I'm a little mystified as to the usefulness of this as well. I mean, what does hashing the domain name solve that just balancing back to a bunch of Apache instances with virtual hosting turned on doesn't? Are you saying that you have domains like en.example.com, fr.example.com and you want them all to be sticky to the same backend server when they balance? If that's the case, I could see that being useful if the site in question were doing some sort of expensive per-user asset generation that was being cached on the server. Is this what you are talking about? John L. Singleton jsing...@gmail.com On Mar 29, 2009, at 9:05 AM, Jeffrey 'jf' Lim wrote: On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 8:02 PM, Benoit maver...@maverick.eu.org wrote: diff -ru haproxy-1.3.15.7/doc/configuration.txt haproxy-1.3.15.7- cur/doc/configuration.txt --- haproxy-1.3.15.7/doc/configuration.txt 2008-12-04 11:29:13.0 +0100 +++ haproxy-1.3.15.7-cur/doc/configuration.txt 2009-02-24 16:17:19.0 +0100 @@ -788,6 +788,19 @@ balance url_param param [check_post [max_wait]] + header The Http Header specified in argument will be looked up in + each HTTP request. + + With the Host header name, an optionnal use_domain_only + parameter is available, for reducing the hash algorithm to + the main domain part, eg for haproxy.1wt.eu, only 1wt + will be taken into consideration. + I'm not so sure how balancing based on a hash of the Host header would be useful. How would this be useful? I would see an application for balancing on perhaps other headers (like xff as mentioned), but for Host... I dunno... (so basically what I'm saying is, is the code for the 'use_domain_only' bit useful? can it be left out?) -jf -- In the meantime, here is your PSA: It's so hard to write a graphics driver that open-sourcing it would not help. -- Andrew Fear, Software Product Manager, NVIDIA Corporation http://kerneltrap.org/node/7228
Re: balance source based on a X-Forwarded-For
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 12:31:27PM -0700, John L. Singleton wrote: I'm a little mystified as to the usefulness of this as well. I mean, what does hashing the domain name solve that just balancing back to a bunch of Apache instances with virtual hosting turned on doesn't? Are you saying that you have domains like en.example.com, fr.example.com and you want them all to be sticky to the same backend server when they balance? If that's the case, I could see that being useful if the site in question were doing some sort of expensive per-user asset generation that was being cached on the server. Is this what you are talking about? There are proxies which can do prefetching, and in this case, it's desirable that all requests for a same domain name pass through the same cache. Regards, Willy
Re: balance source based on a X-Forwarded-For
Willy Tarreau a écrit : On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 07:46:05PM +0200, benoit wrote: Jeffrey 'jf' Lim a écrit : On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 8:02 PM, Benoit maver...@maverick.eu.org wrote: diff -ru haproxy-1.3.15.7/doc/configuration.txt haproxy-1.3.15.7-cur/doc/configuration.txt --- haproxy-1.3.15.7/doc/configuration.txt 2008-12-04 11:29:13.0 +0100 +++ haproxy-1.3.15.7-cur/doc/configuration.txt 2009-02-24 16:17:19.0 +0100 @@ -788,6 +788,19 @@ balance url_param param [check_post [max_wait]] + header The Http Header specified in argument will be looked up in + each HTTP request. + + With the Host header name, an optionnal use_domain_only + parameter is available, for reducing the hash algorithm to + the main domain part, eg for haproxy.1wt.eu, only 1wt + will be taken into consideration. + I'm not so sure how balancing based on a hash of the Host header would be useful. How would this be useful? I would see an application for balancing on perhaps other headers (like xff as mentioned), but for Host... I dunno... (so basically what I'm saying is, is the code for the 'use_domain_only' bit useful? can it be left out?) -jf Well, at least it's usefull for our business, it's why it's here :) It's aimed at a shared hosting environmen, with multiple host entry pointing to differents web sites. The objective was to maximise caching efficiency and response times by 'sticking' a site to a backend server. The use_domain_only was here to reduce the hashing to the most significative part and help with site using many tld for language selection. BTW Benoit, be careful, you left some fprintf() in your patch. Regards, Willy Heck yes, i'll have to check on this thanks. Btw, why isn't this list set with a default reply to the list ?
Re: balance source based on a X-Forwarded-For
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 10:17:39PM +0200, benoit wrote: BTW Benoit, be careful, you left some fprintf() in your patch. Regards, Willy Heck yes, i'll have to check on this thanks. You're welcome. Btw, why isn't this list set with a default reply to the list ? Because I hate it when responses to my messages only go to the list. I can't permanently check all the lists I'm subscribed to, and I find it a lot better that people involved in a discussion are kept CCed. However, IIRC the list does not change the reply-to header, so anyone is free to set it to the list and will not get direct copies when people hit reply-to-all. Willy
Re: balance source based on a X-Forwarded-For
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 3:48 AM, Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu wrote: On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 12:31:27PM -0700, John L. Singleton wrote: I'm a little mystified as to the usefulness of this as well. I mean, what does hashing the domain name solve that just balancing back to a bunch of Apache instances with virtual hosting turned on doesn't? Are you saying that you have domains like en.example.com, fr.example.com and you want them all to be sticky to the same backend server when they balance? If that's the case, I could see that being useful if the site in question were doing some sort of expensive per-user asset generation that was being cached on the server. Is this what you are talking about? There are proxies which can do prefetching, and in this case, it's desirable that all requests for a same domain name pass through the same cache. so are you saying haproxy - cache - backend? (in which case, you would be talking more about an ISP, i think? or does anybody here not running an ISP actually do this (I would be interested to know)) -jf -- In the meantime, here is your PSA: It's so hard to write a graphics driver that open-sourcing it would not help. -- Andrew Fear, Software Product Manager, NVIDIA Corporation http://kerneltrap.org/node/7228
