Application Layer Load Balancers

In stark comparison to web switches and IPVS systems, application layer load balancers operate entirely in user space. As such, they have a few feature advantages over their low-level counterparts. Along with these extra features come rather apparent limitationsspecifically in the area of performance. These applications must play in the sandbox that is user space and as such are forced to deal with application programming interfaces (APIs) and limitations exposed therein.

A few examples of application-layer load balancers are

  • Zeus Load Balancer

  • Eddie

  • Apache and mod_backhand

These products are fast and flexible, but the concurrency and performance they boast are pale when compared to the enterprise and carrier-class layer 4 and layer 7 switches available on the market. Layers 1 through 7 are defined by the OSI network model and are depicted in Figure 5.2.

Figure 5.2. OSI network model applied to the Web.

The advantage of operating on layer 3 is that the solution does not need intimate knowledge of the application-specific protocols (in this case, SSL and HTTP). This advantage yields two benefits. First, layers 3 and under are fairly simple, and hardware accelerated solutions are much easier to come by. This results in performance that is orders of magnitude better than application-level solutions can provide. Second, because layer 3 is the foundation for almost everything that happens on the Internet, the solution is more versatile and can support a wide array of services such as SMTP, POP3, IMAP, DNS, FTP, and NTTP without understanding the intricacies of those high-level IP-based protocols.

Many layer 3 web switches claim to operate above layer 7. The truth is that some appear to work on layer 7 but actually act on layer 3. For the most part, this has advantages, but it also introduces some limitations. A web switch passes all traffic from connecting clients to real servers behind the switch. The same is true with IPVS systems. Although these devices can certainly inspect the traffic as it passes, they typically operate on the IP level with the capability to translate TCP/IP sessions to back-end servers. It is important to understand the difference between translation and proxying. When translating, the packets are simply manipulated (which can be done on an immense scale). Proxying requires processing all the data from the client and the real servers to which traffic is being sent, which includes reforming and originating all needed packetsthat is substantially more expensive. Because these devices transit the web users' sessions, they can inspect the payload of packets to make decisions based on layer 7 information while affecting traffic on layer 3.

If a device can perform its duties without modifying packets above layer 5, why would you ever employ a technology like an application-level load balancer? Certain mechanisms cannot be employed without handling and fully processing information through the entire OSI network stack. These mechanisms are often safely ignored in large-scale architectures, but often is not always, so we stand to benefit discussing it here.

The following are some things that can be done by application-level load balancers that are difficult to do on web switches and IPVS devices:

  • Requests can be allocated based on information in an encrypted SSL session.

  • Requests of subsequent transactions in a pipelined HTTP session can be allocated to different real servers.

  • Business rules can be used as the basis for customized allocation algorithms instead of predetermined vendor rules.

Certain high traffic environments have session concurrency requirements that make web switches and IPVS solutions more reasonable to deploy than an application-level solution. However, as should be apparent, requirements dictate the final solution more so than does convenience. If a web switch or IPVS simply can't fit the bill due to functional limitations, the solution is not bumped down the preference list; it is eliminated entirely.

A Real Use

A variety of uses of application-level load balancers can operate fully to layer 7. The most obvious are those that need to base allocation decisions on information in the request while employing SSL. SSL provides a mechanism for a client to validate the identity and authenticity of a server and optionally vice versa via a public key infrastructure (PKI). Additionally, using asymmetric cryptography, a symmetric key is negotiated and used to encrypt the session. Due to this safely negotiated keying, a man in the middle cannot compromise the information as it passes by.

Web switches and IPVS solutions typically do not terminate SSL connections. If they do, they are often application layer load balancing systems in disguise. Because they do not terminate the SSL session, they cannot see the payload and thus cannot use the information therein for decisions. Application-level load balancers, on the other hand, can.

Suppose that you have a news site serviced over SSL where three levels of users access the site. Premium customers are issued client SSL certificates and offered real-time news with stringent quality of service guarantees. Paying customers are given access to real-time data but less stringent quality of service guarantees. Nonpaying users access the site with no guarantees and no access to real-time data. The one kink in the plan is that all sites need to be serviced by the same URL schema. In other words, the complete URLs must be identical across all users because they tend to migrate from one service level to another on a regular basis, and it is essential that their bookmarks all continue to function and that naive users are not confused by different URLs or hostnames.

As such, you need something more than a load balancer. You need a resource allocation framework. Load balancers are, in effect, resource allocation frameworks; however, their allocation techniques are primarily focused on equalizing utilization across the machines for which they front. The beauty of application load balancers is that they implement all the plumbing necessary to proxy user-originating connections back to a set of real servers, and, because they are implemented as user-space applications, different decision-making algorithms are often easy to implement.

Both Eddie and mod_backhand can be used as general purpose resource allocation frameworks. This allows you to make simple modifications to the algorithms to accomplish the presented goal of your news site. The service requires the use of SSL, so the solution used must terminate the SSL connection to inspect the payload. As such, these frameworks are privy to the details of the connection, session, and payload. If an SSL certificate is presented by the client, this tier can validate the certificate, ensure that the user is still in good standing, and choose the appropriate real server based on more than just utilization. Figure 5.3 depicts a basic flow of this setup.

Figure 5.3. A full resource allocation system.

Scalable Internet Architectures
Scalable Internet Architectures
ISBN: 067232699X
EAN: 2147483647
Year: 2006
Pages: 114

Similar book on Amazon © 2008-2017.
If you may any questions please contact us: