Re: [PATCH]: Spread checks

From: Krzysztof Oledzki <>
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:14:35 +0200 (CEST)

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007, Willy Tarreau wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 10:44:15PM +0200, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 11:35:43AM +0200, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
>>>> I noticed that each server receive all checks in a very short (<1ms) time
>>>> (attached checklog2 file). I think that having 10s for 48 (16*3) tests it
>>>> is possible to reduce both servers' and loadbalancer stress a little, by
>>>> running each test every 10s/48 = ~ 0.2s.
>>> Yes, and this was even worse in the past because all servers for a same
>>> group were checked at the same instant. There were people doing
>>> load-balancing
>>> on same machines with multiple ports who got regular load peaks during the
>>> checks. So I have spread them apart within one backend.
>>> However, the problem still remains if you share the same server between
>>> many instances. I'm not sure how I could improve this. Maybe add a
>>> per-backend
>>> start delay for the checks, which would be equal to min_inter/#backends.
>>> As an
>>> alternative right now, you can rotate your servers within different
>>> backends.
>>> I think I could also add a global "spread-check" parameter allowing us to
>>> add
>>> some random time between all checks in order to spread them apart. It would
>>> take a percentage parameter adding or removing that many percent to the
>>> interval
>>> after each check.
>> Attached patch implements per-server start delay in a different way.
>> Checks are now spread globally - not locally to one backend. It also makes
>> them started faster - IMHO there is no need to add a 'server->inter' when
>> calculating first execution.
> the reason for the server->inter is that there are people using 10 servers
> entries which all point to the same machine on 10 different ports. The "inter"
> gives a hint about how often we expect the checks to be sent.

OK, next check is going to be after server->inter, so no problem IMHO. Only the first one (for each server) is going to be executed faster. This is important, because when you restart haproxy and some servers are down, haproxy may send them connections and I see no reason to delay checks so much.

>> Calculation were moved from cfgparse.c to
>> checks.c. There is a new function start_checks() and now it is not called
>> when haproxy is started in MODE_CHECK.
>> With this patch it is also possible to set a global 'spread-check'
>> parameter. It takes a percentage value (1..50, probably something near
>> 5..10 is a good idea) so haproxy adds or removes that many percent to the
>> oryginal interval after each check. My test shows that with 18 backends,
>> 54 servers total and 10000ms/5% it takes about 45m to mix them completely.
> I think that we should be *very* careful when subtracting random percentage.
> It is very easy to go down to zero that way, and have a server bombed by
> health-checks.

Is is not possible as spread-check accepts only 1..50, so in a worst case this time should be (server->inter/2)+1.

> BTW, I'm suddenly thinking about something: when I build the servers map,
> I use all the server weights and arrange them so that all their occurrences
> are as far as possible from each other, while respecting their exact weight.
> It it works very well. I'm realizing that we need exactly the same principle
> for the checks. The "weight" here is simply the frequency at which the servers
> must be checked, which is 1/interval. So by using the exact same functions as
> is used to build the servers map, we could build a health-check map that way :
> foreach srv in all_servers :
> weight(srv) = max(all inter) / inter(srv)
> build_health_map(all_servers)
> Afterwards, we would just have to cycle through this map to start the checks.
> It would even remove the need for one timer per server in the timers table.
> The immediate advantage is that they would all be spread apart upon startup,
> and we would not need the random anymore (eventhough it's would not harm to
> conserve the option).
> What do you think about this ?

I need to think about this for a moment - I'm currently traveling and it takes a lot of patience to work with ss over GPRS. ;)

Anyway, server weights are afaik 1..255 and server->inter are 0..10K or even worse. I'm not sure if this could work here. Please also note that my solution is quite simple and after one week I can say it works pretty well when used with at least small spread-check.

Best regards,

                                 Krzysztof Olędzki Received on 2007/09/29 13:14

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : 2007/11/04 19:21 CET