| ----------------------- |
| HAProxy Starter Guide |
| ----------------------- |
| version 1.6 |
| |
| |
| This document is an introduction to HAProxy for all those who don't know it, as |
| well as for those who want to re-discover it when they know older versions. Its |
| primary focus is to provide users with all the elements to decide if HAProxy is |
| the product they're looking for or not. Advanced users may find here some parts |
| of solutions to some ideas they had just because they were not aware of a given |
| new feature. Some sizing information are also provided, the product's lifecycle |
| is explained, and comparisons with partially overlapping products are provided. |
| |
| This document doesn't provide any configuration help nor hint, but it explains |
| where to find the relevant documents. The summary below is meant to help you |
| search sections by name and navigate through the document. |
| |
| Note to documentation contributors : |
| This document is formatted with 80 columns per line, with even number of |
| spaces for indentation and without tabs. Please follow these rules strictly |
| so that it remains easily printable everywhere. If you add sections, please |
| update the summary below for easier searching. |
| |
| |
| Summary |
| ------- |
| |
| 1. Available documentation |
| |
| 2. Quick introduction to load balancing and load balancers |
| |
| 3. Introduction to HAProxy |
| 3.1. What HAProxy is and is not |
| 3.2. How HAProxy works |
| 3.3. Basic features |
| 3.3.1. Proxying |
| 3.3.2. SSL |
| 3.3.3. Monitoring |
| 3.3.4. High availability |
| 3.3.5. Load balancing |
| 3.3.6. Stickiness |
| 3.3.7. Sampling and converting information |
| 3.3.8. Maps |
| 3.3.9. ACLs and conditions |
| 3.3.10. Content switching |
| 3.3.11. Stick-tables |
| 3.3.12. Formated strings |
| 3.3.13. HTTP rewriting and redirection |
| 3.3.14. Server protection |
| 3.3.15. Logging |
| 3.3.16. Statistics |
| 3.4. Advanced features |
| 3.4.1. Management |
| 3.4.2. System-specific capabilities |
| 3.4.3. Scripting |
| 3.5. Sizing |
| 3.6. How to get HAProxy |
| |
| 4. Companion products and alternatives |
| 4.1. Apache HTTP server |
| 4.2. NGINX |
| 4.3. Varnish |
| 4.4. Alternatives |
| |
| |
| 1. Available documentation |
| -------------------------- |
| |
| The complete HAProxy documentation is contained in the following documents. |
| Please ensure to consult the relevant documentation to save time and to get the |
| most accurate response to your needs. Also please refrain from sending questions |
| to the mailing list whose responses are present in these documents. |
| |
| - intro.txt (this document) : it presents the basics of load balancing, |
| HAProxy as a product, what it does, what it doesn't do, some known traps to |
| avoid, some OS-specific limitations, how to get it, how it evolves, how to |
| ensure you're running with all known fixes how to update it, complements and |
| alternatives. |
| |
| - management.txt : it explains how to start haproxy, how to manage it at |
| runtime, how to manage it on multiple nodes, how to proceed with seamless |
| upgrades. |
| |
| - configuration.txt : the reference manual details all configuration keywords |
| and their options. It is used when a configuration change is needed. |
| |
| - architecture.txt : the architecture manual explains how to best architect a |
| load-balanced infrastructure and how to interact with third party products. |
| |
| - coding-style.txt : this is for developers who want to propose some code to |
| the project. It explains the style to adopt for the code. It's not very |
| strict and not all the code base completely respects it but contributions |
| which diverge too much from it will be rejected. |
| |
| - proxy-protocol.txt : this is the de-facto specification of the PROXY |
| protocol which is implemented by HAProxy and a number of third party |
| products. |
| |
| - README : how to build haproxy from sources |
| |
| |
| 2. Quick introduction to load balancing and load balancers |
| ---------------------------------------------------------- |
| |
| Load balancing consists in aggregating multiple components in order to achieve |
| a total processing capacity above each component's individual capacity, without |
| any intervention from the end user and in a scalable way. This results in more |
| operations being performed simultaneously by the time it takes component to |
| perform only one. A single operation however will still be performed on a single |
| component at a time and will not get faster than without load balancing. It |
| always requires at least as many operations as available components and an |
| efficient load balancing mechanism to make use of all components and to fully |
| benefit from the load balancing. A good example of this is the number of lanes |
| on a highway which allows as many cars to pass during the same time frame |
| without increasing their individual speed. |
| |
| Examples of load balancing : |
| |
| - Process scheduling in multi-processor systems |
| - Link load balancing (eg: EtherChannel, Bonding) |
| - IP address load balancing (eg: ECMP, DNS roundrobin) |
| - Server load balancing (via load balancers) |
| |
| The mechanism or component which performs the load balancing operation is |
| called a load balancer. In web environments these components are called a |
| "network load balancer", and more commonly a "load balancer" given that this |
| activity is by far the best known case of load balancing. |
| |
| A load balancer may act : |
| |
| - at the link level : this is called link load balancing, and it consists in |
| chosing what network link to send a packet to; |
| |
| - at the network level : this is called network load balancing, and it |
| consists in chosing what route a series of packets will follow; |
| |
| - at the server level : this is called server load balancing and it consists |
| in deciding what server will process a connection or request. |
| |
| Two distinct technologies exist and address different needs, though with some |
| overlapping. |
| |
| The first one acts at the packet level and processes packets more or less |
| individually. There is a 1-to-1 relation between input and output packets, so |
| it is possible to follow the traffic on both sides of the load balancer using a |
| regular network sniffer. This technology can be very cheap and extremely fast. |
| It is usually implemented in hardware (ASICs) allowing to reach line rate, such |
| as switches doing ECMP. Usually stateless, it can also be stateful (consider |
| the session a packet belongs to and called layer4-LB or L4), may support DSR |
| (direct server return, without passing through the LB again) if the packets |
| were not modified, but provides almost no content awareness. This technology is |
| very well suited to network-level load balancing, though it is sometimes used |
| for very basic server load balancing at high speed. |
| |
| The second one acts on session contents. It requires that the input streams is |
| reassembled and processed as a whole. The contents may be modified, and the |
| output stream is segmented into new packets. For this reason it is generally |
| performed by proxies and they're often called layer 7 load balancers or L7. |
| This implies that there are two distinct connections on each side, and that |
| there is no relation between input and output packets sizes nor counts. Clients |
| and servers are not required to use the same protocol (for example IPv4 vs |
| IPv6, clear vs SSL). The operations are always stateful, and the return traffic |
| must pass through the load balancer. The extra processing comes with a cost so |
| it's not always possible to achieve line rate, especially with small packets. |
| On the other hand, it offers wide possibilities and is generally achieved by |
| pure software, even if embedded into hardware appliances. This technology is |
| very well suited for server load balancing. |
| |
| Packet-based load balancers are generally deployed in cut-through mode, so they |
| are installed on the normal path of the traffic and divert it according to the |
| configuration. The return traffic doesn't necessarily pass through the load |
| balancer. Some modifications may be applied to the network destination address |
| in order to direct the traffic to the proper destination. In this case, it is |
| mandatory that the return traffic passes through the load balancer. If the |
| routes doesn't make this possible, the load balancer may also replace the |
| packets' source address with its own in order to force the return traffic to |
| pass through it. |
| |
| Proxy-based load balancers are deployed as a server with their own IP address |
| and ports, without architecture changes. Sometimes this requires to perform some |
| adaptations to the applications so that clients are properly directed to the |
| load balancer's IP address and not directly to the server's. Some load balancers |
| may have to adjust some servers' responses to make this possible (eg: the HTTP |
| Location header field used in HTTP redirects). Some proxy-based load balancers |
| may intercept traffic for an address they don't own, and spoof the client's |
| address when connecting to the server. This allows them to be deployed as if |
| they were a regular router or firewall, in a cut-through mode very similar to |
| the packet based load balancers. This is particularly appreciated for products |
| which combine both packet mode and proxy mode. In this case DSR is obviously |
| still not possible and the return traffic still has to be routed back to the |
| load balancer. |
| |
| A very scalable layered approach would consist in having a front router which |
| receives traffic from multiple load balanced links, and uses ECMP to distribute |
| this traffic to a first layer of multiple stateful packet-based load balancers |
| (L4). These L4 load balancers in turn pass the traffic to an even larger number |
| of proxy-based load balancers (L7), which have to parse the contents to decide |
| what server will ultimately receive the traffic. |
| |
| The number of components and possible paths for the traffic increases the risk |
| of failure; in very large environments, it is even normal to permanently have |
| a few faulty components being fixed or replaced. Load balancing done without |
| awareness of the whole stack's health significantly degrades availability. For |
| this reason, any sane load balancer will verify that the components it intends |
| to deliver the traffic to are still alive and reachable, and it will stop |
| delivering traffic to faulty ones. This can be achieved using various methods. |
| |
| The most common one consists in periodically sending probes to ensure the |
| component is still operational. These probes are called "health checks". They |
| must be representative of the type of failure to address. For example a ping- |
| based check will not detect that a web server has crashed and doesn't listen to |
| a port anymore, while a connection to the port will verify this, and a more |
| advanced request may even validate that the server still works and that the |
| database it relies on is still accessible. Health checks often involve a few |
| retries to cover for occasional measuring errors. The period between checks |
| must be small enough to ensure the faulty component is not used for too long |
| after an error occurs. |
| |
| Other methods consist in sampling the production traffic sent to a destination |
| to observe if it is processed correctly or not, and to evince the components |
| which return inappropriate responses. However this requires to sacrify a part |
| of the production traffic and this is not always acceptable. A combination of |
| these two mechanisms provides the best of both worlds, with both of them being |
| used to detect a fault, and only health checks to detect the end of the fault. |
| A last method involves centralized reporting : a central monitoring agent |
| periodically updates all load balancers about all components' state. This gives |
| a global view of the infrastructure to all components, though sometimes with |
| less accuracy or responsiveness. It's best suited for environments with many |
| load balancers and many servers. |
| |
| Layer 7 load balancers also face another challenge known as stickiness or |
| persistence. The principle is that they generally have to direct multiple |
| subsequent requests or connections from a same origin (such as an end user) to |
| the same target. The best known example is the shopping cart on an online |
| store. If each click leads to a new connection, the user must always be sent |
| to the server which holds his shopping cart. Content-awareness makes it easier |
| to spot some elements in the request to identify the server to deliver it to, |
| but that's not always enough. For example if the source address is used as a |
| key to pick a server, it can be decided that a hash-based algorithm will be |
| used and that a given IP address will always be sent to the same server based |
| on a divide of the address by the number of available servers. But if one |
| server fails, the result changes and all users are suddenly sent to a different |
| server and lose their shopping cart. The solution against this issue consists |
| in memorizing the chosen target so that each time the same visitor is seen, |
| he's directed to the same server regardless of the number of available servers. |
| The information may be stored in the load balancer's memory, in which case it |
| may have to be replicated to other load balancers if it's not alone, or it may |
| be stored in the client's memory using various methods provided that the client |
| is able to present this information back with every request (cookie insertion, |
| redirection to a sub-domain, etc). This mechanism provides the extra benefit of |
| not having to rely on unstable or unevenly distributed information (such as the |
| source IP address). This is in fact the strongest reason to adopt a layer 7 |
| load balancer instead of a layer 4 one. |
| |
| In order to extract information such as a cookie, a host header field, a URL |
| or whatever, a load balancer may need to decrypt SSL/TLS traffic and even |
| possibly to reencrypt it when passing it to the server. This expensive task |
| explains why in some high-traffic infrastructures, sometimes there may be a |
| lot of load balancers. |
| |
| Since a layer 7 load balancer may perform a number of complex operations on the |
| traffic (decrypt, parse, modify, match cookies, decide what server to send to, |
| etc), it can definitely cause some trouble and will very commonly be accused of |
| being responsible for a lot of trouble that it only revealed. Often it will be |
| discovered that servers are unstable and periodically go up and down, or for |
| web servers, that they deliver pages with some hard-coded links forcing the |
| clients to connect directly to one specific server without passing via the load |
| balancer, or that they take ages to respond under high load causing timeouts. |
| That's why logging is an extremely important aspect of layer 7 load balancing. |
| Once a trouble is reported, it is important to figure if the load balancer took |
| a wrong decision and if so why so that it doesn't happen anymore. |
| |
| |
| 3. Introduction to HAProxy |
| -------------------------- |
| |
| HAProxy is written "HAProxy" to designate the product, "haproxy" to designate |
| the executable program, software package or a process, though both are commonly |
| used for both purposes, and is pronounced H-A-Proxy. Very early it used to stand |
| for "high availability proxy" and the name was written in two separate words, |
| though by now it means nothing else than "HAProxy". |
| |
| |
| 3.1. What HAProxy is and is not |
| ------------------------------- |
| |
| HAProxy is : |
| |
| - a TCP proxy : it can accept a TCP connection from a listening socket, |
| connect to a server and attach these sockets together allowing traffic to |
| flow in both directions; |
| |
| - an HTTP reverse-proxy (called a "gateway" in HTTP terminology) : it presents |
| itself as a server, receives HTTP requests over connections accepted on a |
| listening TCP socket, and passes the requests from these connections to |
| servers using different connections. |
| |
| - an SSL terminator / initiator / offloader : SSL/TLS may be used on the |
| connection coming from the client, on the connection going to the server, |
| or even on both connections. |
| |
| - a TCP normalizer : since connections are locally terminated by the operating |
| system, there is no relation between both sides, so abnormal traffic such as |
| invalid packets, flag combinations, window advertisements, sequence numbers, |
| incomplete connections (SYN floods), or so will not be passed to the other |
| side. This protects fragile TCP stacks from protocol attacks, and also |
| allows to optimize the connection parameters with the client without having |
| to modify the servers' TCP stack settings. |
| |
| - an HTTP normalizer : when configured to process HTTP traffic, only valid |
| complete requests are passed. This protects against a lot of protocol-based |
| attacks. Additionally, protocol deviations for which there is a tolerance |
| in the specification are fixed so that they don't cause problem on the |
| servers (eg: multiple-line headers). |
| |
| - an HTTP fixing tool : it can modify / fix / add / remove / rewrite the URL |
| or any request or response header. This helps fixing interoperability issues |
| in complex environments. |
| |
| - a content-based switch : it can consider any element from the request to |
| decide what server to pass the request or connection to. Thus it is possible |
| to handle multiple protocols over a same port (eg: http, https, ssh). |
| |
| - a server load balancer : it can load balance TCP connections and HTTP |
| requests. In TCP mode, load balancing decisions are taken for the whole |
| connection. In HTTP mode, decisions are taken per request. |
| |
| - a traffic regulator : it can apply some rate limiting at various points, |
| protect the servers against overloading, adjust traffic priorities based on |
| the contents, and even pass such information to lower layers and outer |
| network components by marking packets. |
| |
| - a protection against DDoS and service abuse : it can maintain a wide number |
| of statistics per IP address, URL, cookie, etc and detect when an abuse is |
| happening, then take action (slow down the offenders, block them, send them |
| to outdated contents, etc). |
| |
| - an observation point for network troubleshooting : due to the precision of |
| the information reported in logs, it is often used to narrow down some |
| network-related issues. |
| |
| - an HTTP compression offloader : it can compress responses which were not |
| compressed by the server, thus reducing the page load time for clients with |
| poor connectivity or using high-latency, mobile networks. |
| |
| HAProxy is not : |
| |
| - an explicit HTTP proxy, ie, the proxy that browsers use to reach the |
| internet. There are excellent open-source software dedicated for this task, |
| such as Squid. However HAProxy can be installed in front of such a proxy to |
| provide load balancing and high availability. |
| |
| - a caching proxy : it will return as-is the contents its received from the |
| server and will not interfere with any caching policy. There are excellent |
| open-source software for this task such as Varnish. HAProxy can be installed |
| in front of such a cache to provide SSL offloading, and scalability through |
| smart load balancing. |
| |
| - a data scrubber : it will not modify the body of requests nor responses. |
| |
| - a web server : during startup, it isolates itself inside a chroot jail and |
| drops its privileges, so that it will not perform any single file-system |
| access once started. As such it cannot be turned into a web server. There |
| are excellent open-source software for this such as Apache or Nginx, and |
| HAProxy can be installed in front of them to provide load balancing and |
| high availability. |
| |
| - a packet-based load balancer : it will not see IP packets nor UDP datagrams, |
| will not perform NAT or even less DSR. These are tasks for lower layers. |
| Some kernel-based components such as IPVS (Linux Virtual Server) already do |
| this pretty well and complement perfectly with HAProxy. |
| |
| |
| 3.2. How HAProxy works |
| ---------------------- |
| |
| HAProxy is a single-threaded, event-driven, non-blocking engine combining a very |
| fast I/O layer with a priority-based scheduler. As it is designed with a data |
| forwarding goal in mind, its architecture is optimized to move data as fast as |
| possible with the least possible operations. As such it implements a layered |
| model offering bypass mechanisms at each level ensuring data don't reach higher |
| levels when not needed. Most of the processing is performed in the kernel, and |
| HAProxy does its best to help the kernel do the work as fast as possible by |
| giving some hints or by avoiding certain operation when it guesses they could |
| be grouped later. As a result, typical figures show 15% of the processing time |
| spent in HAProxy versus 85% in the kernel in TCP or HTTP close mode, and about |
| 30% for HAProxy versus 70% for the kernel in HTTP keep-alive mode. |
| |
| A single process can run many proxy instances; configurations as large as |
| 300000 distinct proxies in a single process were reported to run fine. Thus |
| there is usually no need to start more than one process for all instances. |
| |
| It is possible to make HAProxy run over multiple processes, but it comes with |
| a few limitations. In general it doesn't make sense in HTTP close or TCP modes |
| because the kernel-side doesn't scale very well with some operations such as |
| connect(). It scales pretty well for HTTP keep-alive mode but the performance |
| that can be achieved out of a single process generaly outperforms common needs |
| by an order of magnitude. It does however make sense when used as an SSL |
| offloader, and this feature is well supported in multi-process mode. |
| |
| HAProxy only requires the haproxy executable and a configuration file to run. |
| For logging it is highly recommended to have a properly configured syslog daemon |
| and log rotations in place. The configuration files are parsed before starting, |
| then HAProxy tries to bind all listening sockets, and refuses to start if |
| anything fails. Past this point it cannot fail anymore. This means that there |
| are no runtime failures and that if it accepts to start, it will work until it |
| is stopped. |
| |
| Once HAProxy is started, it does exactly 3 things : |
| |
| - process incoming connections; |
| |
| - periodically check the servers' status (known as health checks); |
| |
| - exchange information with other haproxy nodes. |
| |
| Processing incoming connections is by far the most complex task as it depends |
| on a lot of configuration possibilities, but it can be summarized as the 9 steps |
| below : |
| |
| - accept incoming connections from listening sockets that belong to a |
| configuration entity known as a "frontend", which references one or multiple |
| listening addresses; |
| |
| - apply the frontend-specific processing rules to these connections that may |
| result in blocking them, modifying some headers, or intercepting them to |
| execute some internal applets such as the statistics page or the CLI; |
| |
| - pass these incoming connections to another configuration entity representing |
| a server farm known as a "backend", which contains the list of servers and |
| the load balancing strategy for this server farm; |
| |
| - apply the backend-specific processing rules to these connections; |
| |
| - decide which server to forward the connection to according to the load |
| balancing strategy; |
| |
| - apply the backend-specific processing rules to the response data; |
| |
| - apply the frontend-specific processing rules to the response data; |
| |
| - emit a log to report what happened in fine details; |
| |
| - in HTTP, loop back to the second step to wait for a new request, otherwise |
| close the connection. |
| |
| Frontends and backends are sometimes considered as half-proxies, since they only |
| look at one side of an end-to-end connection; the frontend only cares about the |
| clients while the backend only cares about the servers. HAProxy also supports |
| full proxies which are exactly the union of a frontend and a backend. When HTTP |
| processing is desired, the configuration will generally be split into frontends |
| and backends as they open a lot of possibilities since any frontend may pass a |
| connection to any backend. With TCP-only proxies, using frontends and backends |
| rarely provides a benefit and the configuration can be more readable with full |
| proxies. |
| |
| |
| 3.3. Basic features |
| ------------------- |
| |
| This section will enumerate a number of features that HAProxy implements, some |
| of which are generally expected from any modern load balancer, and some of |
| which are a direct benefit of HAProxy's architecture. More advanced features |
| will be detailed in the next section. |
| |
| |
| 3.3.1. Basic features : Proxying |
| -------------------------------- |
| |
| Proxying is the action of transferring data between a client and a server over |
| two independant connections. The following basic features are supported by |
| HAProxy regarding proxying and connection management : |
| |
| - Provide the server with a clean connection to protect them against any |
| client-side defect or attack; |
| |
| - Listen to multiple IP address and/or ports, even port ranges; |
| |
| - Transparent accept : intercept traffic targetting any arbitrary IP address |
| that doesn't even belong to the local system; |
| |
| - Server port doesn't need to be related to listening port, and may even be |
| translated by a fixed offset (useful with ranges); |
| |
| - Transparent connect : spoof the client's (or any) IP address if needed |
| when connecting to the server; |
| |
| - Provide a reliable return IP address to the servers in multi-site LBs; |
| |
| - Offload the server thanks to buffers and possibly short-lived connections |
| to reduce their concurrent connection count and their memory footprint; |
| |
| - Optimize TCP stacks (eg: SACK), congestion control, and reduce RTT impacts; |
| |
| - Support different protocol families on both sides (eg: IPv4/IPv6/Unix); |
| |
| - Timeout enforcement : HAProxy supports multiple levels of timeouts depending |
| on the stage the connection is, so that a dead client or server, or an |
| attacker cannot be granted resources for too long; |
| |
| - Protocol validation: HTTP, SSL, or payload are inspected and invalid |
| protocol elements are rejected, unless instructed to accept them anyway; |
| |
| - Policy enforcement : ensure that only what is allowed may be forwarded; |
| |
| - Both incoming and outgoing connections may be limited to certain network |
| namespaces (Linux only), making it easy to build a cross-container, |
| multi-tenant load balancer; |
| |
| - PROXY protocol presents the client's IP address to the server even for |
| non-HTTP traffic. This is an HAProxy extension that was adopted by a number |
| of third-party products by now, at least these ones at the time of writing : |
| - client : haproxy, stud, stunnel, exaproxy, ELB, squid |
| - server : haproxy, stud, postfix, exim, nginx, squid, node.js, varnish |
| |
| |
| 3.3.2. Basic features : SSL |
| --------------------------- |
| |
| HAProxy's SSL stack is recognized as one of the most featureful according to |
| Google's engineers (http://istlsfastyet.com/). The most commonly used features |
| making it quite complete are : |
| |
| - SNI-based multi-hosting with no limit on sites count and focus on |
| performance. At least one deployment is known for running 50000 domains |
| with their respective certificates; |
| |
| - support for wildcard certificates reduces the need for many certificates ; |
| |
| - certificate-based client authentication with configurable policies on |
| failure to present a valid certificate. This allows to present a different |
| server farm to regenerate the client certificate for example; |
| |
| - authentication of the backend server ensures the backend server is the real |
| one and not a man in the middle; |
| |
| - authentication with the backend server lets the backend server it's really |
| the expected haproxy node that is connecting to it; |
| |
| - TLS NPN and ALPN extensions make it possible to reliably offload SPDY/HTTP2 |
| connections and pass them in clear text to backend servers; |
| |
| - OCSP stapling further reduces first page load time by delivering inline an |
| OCSP response when the client requests a Certificate Status Request; |
| |
| - Dynamic record sizing provides both high performance and low latency, and |
| significantly reduces page load time by letting the browser start to fetch |
| new objects while packets are still in flight; |
| |
| - permanent access to all relevant SSL/TLS layer information for logging, |
| access control, reporting etc... These elements can be embedded into HTTP |
| header or even as a PROXY protocol extension so that the offloaded server |
| gets all the information it would have had if it performed the SSL |
| termination itself. |
| |
| - Detect, log and block certain known attacks even on vulnerable SSL libs, |
| such as the Heartbleed attack affecting certain versions of OpenSSL. |
| |
| |
| 3.3.3. Basic features : Monitoring |
| ---------------------------------- |
| |
| HAProxy focuses a lot on availability. As such it cares about servers state, |
| and about reporting its own state to other network components : |
| |
| - Servers state is continuously monitored using per-server parameters. This |
| ensures the path to the server is operational for regular traffic; |
| |
| - Health checks support two hysteresis for up and down transitions in order |
| to protect against state flapping; |
| |
| - Checks can be sent to a different address/port/protocol : this makes it |
| easy to check a single service that is considered representative of multiple |
| ones, for example the HTTPS port for an HTTP+HTTPS server. |
| |
| - Servers can track other servers and go down simultaneously : this ensures |
| that servers hosting multiple services can fail atomically and that noone |
| will be sent to a partially failed server; |
| |
| - Agents may be deployed on the server to monitor load and health : a server |
| may be interested in reporting its load, operational status, administrative |
| status independantly from what health checks can see. By running a simple |
| agent on the server, it's possible to consider the server's view of its own |
| health in addition to the health checks validating the whole path; |
| |
| - Various check methods are available : TCP connect, HTTP request, SMTP hello, |
| SSL hello, LDAP, SQL, Redis, send/expect scripts, all with/without SSL; |
| |
| - State change is notified in the logs and stats page with the failure reason |
| (eg: the HTTP response received at the moment the failure was detected); |
| |
| - Server state is also reported on the stats interface and can be used to take |
| routing decisions so that traffic may be sent to different farms depending |
| on their sizes and/or health (eg: loss of an inter-DC link); |
| |
| - HAProxy can use health check requests to pass information to the servers, |
| such as their names, weight, the number of other servers in the farm etc... |
| so that servers can adjust their response and decisions based on this |
| knowledge (eg: postpone backups to keep more CPU available); |
| |
| - Servers can use health checks to report more detailed state than just on/off |
| (eg: I would like to stop, please stop sending new visitors); |
| |
| - HAProxy itself can report its state to external components such as routers |
| or other load balancers, allowing to build very complete multi-path and |
| multi-layer infrastructures. |
| |
| |
| 3.3.4. Basic features : High availability |
| ----------------------------------------- |
| |
| Just like any serious load balancer, HAProxy cares a lot about availability to |
| ensure the best global service continuity : |
| |
| - Only valid servers are used ; the other ones are automatically evinced from |
| load balancing farms ; under certain conditions it is still possible to |
| force to use them though; |
| |
| - Support for a graceful shutdown so that it is possible to take servers out |
| of a farm without affecting any connection; |
| |
| - Backup servers are automatically used when active servers are down and |
| replace them so that sessions are not lost when possible. This also allows |
| to build multiple paths to reach the same server (eg: multiple interfaces); |
| |
| - Ability to return a global failed status for a farm when too many servers |
| are down. This, combined with the monitoring capabilities makes it possible |
| for an upstream component to choose a different LB node for a given service; |
| |
| - Stateless design makes it easy to build clusters : by design, HAProxy does |
| its best to ensure the highest service continuity without having to store |
| information that could be lost in the event of a failure. This ensures that |
| a takeover is the most seamless possible; |
| |
| - Integrates well with standard VRRP daemon keepalived : HAProxy easily tells |
| keepalived about its state and copes very will with floating virtual IP |
| addresses. Note: only use IP redundancy protocols (VRRP/CARP) over cluster- |
| based solutions (Heartbeat, ...) as they're the ones offering the fastest, |
| most seamless, and most reliable switchover. |
| |
| |
| 3.3.5. Basic features : Load balancing |
| -------------------------------------- |
| |
| HAProxy offers a fairly complete set of load balancing features, most of which |
| are unfortunately not available in a number of other load balancing products : |
| |
| - no less than 9 load balancing algorithms are supported, some of which apply |
| to input data to offer an infinite list of possibilities. The most common |
| ones are round-robin (for short connections, pick each server in turn), |
| leastconn (for long connections, pick the least recently used of the servers |
| with the lowest connection count), source (for SSL farms or terminal server |
| farms, the server directly depends on the client's source address), uri (for |
| HTTP caches, the server directly depends on the HTTP URI), hdr (the server |
| directly depends on the contents of a specific HTTP header field), first |
| (for short-lived virtual machines, all connections are packed on the |
| smallest possible subset of servers so that unused ones can be powered |
| down); |
| |
| - all algorithms above support per-server weights so that it is possible to |
| accommodate from different server generations in a farm, or direct a small |
| fraction of the traffic to specific servers (debug mode, running the next |
| version of the software, etc); |
| |
| - dynamic weights are supported for round-robin, leastconn and consistent |
| hashing ; this allows server weights to be modified on the fly from the CLI |
| or even by an agent running on the server; |
| |
| - slow-start is supported whenever a dynamic weight is supported; this allows |
| a server to progressively take the traffic. This is an important feature |
| for fragile application servers which require to compile classes at runtime |
| as well as cold caches which need to fill up before being run at full |
| throttle; |
| |
| - hashing can apply to various elements such as client's source address, URL |
| components, query string element, header field values, POST parameter, RDP |
| cookie; |
| |
| - consistent hashing protects server farms against massive redistribution when |
| adding or removing servers in a farm. That's very important in large cache |
| farms and it allows slow-start to be used to refill cold caches; |
| |
| - a number of internal metrics such as the number of connections per server, |
| per backend, the amount of available connection slots in a backend etc makes |
| it possible to build very advanced load balancing strategies. |
| |
| |
| 3.3.6. Basic features : Stickiness |
| ---------------------------------- |
| |
| Application load balancing would be useless without stickiness. HAProxy provides |
| a fairly comprehensive set of possibilities to maintain a visitor on the same |
| server even across various events such as server addition/removal, down/up |
| cycles, and some methods are designed to be resistant to the distance between |
| multiple load balancing nodes in that they don't require any replication : |
| |
| - stickiness information can be individually matched and learned from |
| different places if desired. For example a JSESSIONID cookie may be matched |
| both in a cookie and in the URL. Up to 8 parallel sources can be learned at |
| the same time and each of them may point to a different stick-table; |
| |
| - stickiness information can come from anything that can be seen within a |
| request or response, including source address, TCP payload offset and |
| length, HTTTP query string elements, header field values, cookies, and so |
| on... |
| |
| - stick-tables are replicated between all nodes in a multi-master fashion ; |
| |
| - commonly used elements such as SSL-ID or RDP cookies (for TSE farms) are |
| directly accessible to ease manipulation; |
| |
| - all sticking rules may be dynamically conditionned by ACLs; |
| |
| - it is possible to decide not to stick to certain servers, such as backup |
| servers, so that when the nominal server comes back, it automatically takes |
| the load back. This is often used in multi-path environments; |
| |
| - in HTTP it is often prefered not to learn anything and instead manipulate |
| a cookie dedicated to stickiness. For this, it's possible to detect, |
| rewrite, insert or prefix such a cookie to let the client remember what |
| server was assigned; |
| |
| - the server may decide to change or clean the stickiness cookie on logout, |
| so that leaving visitors are automatically unbound from the server; |
| |
| - using ACL-based rules it is also possible to selectively ignore or enforce |
| stickiness regardless of the server's state; combined with advanced health |
| checks, that helps admins verify that the server they're installing is up |
| and running before presenting it to the whole world; |
| |
| - an innovative mechanism to set a maximum idle time and duration on cookies |
| ensures that stickiness can be smoothly stopped on devices which are never |
| closed (smartphones, TVs, home appliances) without having to store them on |
| persistent storage; |
| |
| - multiple server entries may share the same stickiness keys so that |
| stickiness is not lost in multi-path environments when one path goes down; |
| |
| - soft-stop ensures that only users with stickiness information will continue |
| to reach the server they've been assigned to but no new users will go there. |
| |
| |
| 3.3.7. Basic features : Sampling and converting information |
| ----------------------------------------------------------- |
| |
| HAProxy supports information sampling using a wide set of "sample fetch |
| functions". The principle is to extract pieces of information known as samples, |
| for immediate use. This is used for stickiness, to build conditions, to produce |
| information in logs or to enrich HTTP headers. |
| |
| Samples can be fetched from various sources : |
| |
| - constants : integers, strings, IP addresses, binary blocks; |
| |
| - the process : date, environment variables, server/frontend/backend/process |
| state, byte/connection counts/rates, queue length, random generator, ... |
| |
| - variables : per-session, per-request, per-response variables; |
| |
| - the client connection : source and destination addresses and ports, and all |
| related statistics counters; |
| |
| - the SSL client session : protocol, version, algorithm, cipher, key size, |
| session ID, all client and server certificate fields, certificate serial, |
| SNI, ALPN, NPN, client support for certain extensions; |
| |
| - request and response buffers contents : arbitrary payload at offset/length, |
| data length, RDP cookie, decoding of SSL hello type, decoding of TLS SNI; |
| |
| - HTTP (request and response) : method, URI, path, query string arguments, |
| status code, headers values, positionnal header value, cookies, captures, |
| authentication, body elements; |
| |
| A sample may then pass through a number of operators known as "converters" to |
| experience some transformation. A converter consumes a sample and produces a |
| new one, possibly of a completely different type. For example, a converter may |
| be used to return only the integer length of the input string, or could turn a |
| string to upper case. Any arbitrary number of converters may be applied in |
| series to a sample before final use. Among all available sample converters, the |
| following ones are the most commonly used : |
| |
| - arithmetic and logic operators : they make it possible to perform advanced |
| computation on input data, such as computing ratios, percentages or simply |
| converting from one unit to another one; |
| |
| - IP address masks are useful when some addresses need to be grouped by larger |
| networks; |
| |
| - data representation : url-decode, base64, hex, JSON strings, hashing; |
| |
| - string conversion : extract substrings at fixed positions, fixed length, |
| extract specific fields around certain delimiters, extract certain words, |
| change case, apply regex-based substitution ; |
| |
| - date conversion : convert to http date format, convert local to UTC and |
| conversely, add or remove offset; |
| |
| - lookup an entry in a stick table to find statistics or assigned server; |
| |
| - map-based key-to-value conversion from a file (mostly used for geolocation). |
| |
| |
| 3.3.8. Basic features : Maps |
| ---------------------------- |
| |
| Maps are a powerful type of converter consisting in loading a two-columns file |
| into memory at boot time, then looking up each input sample from the first |
| column and either returning the corresponding pattern on the second column if |
| the entry was found, or returning a default value. The output information also |
| being a sample, it can in turn experience other transformations including other |
| map lookups. Maps are most commonly used to translate the client's IP address |
| to an AS number or country code since they support a longest match for network |
| addresses but they can be used for various other purposes. |
| |
| Part of their strength comes from being updatable on the fly either from the CLI |
| or from certain actions using other samples, making them capable of storing and |
| retrieving information between subsequent accesses. Another strength comes from |
| the binary tree based indexation which makes them extremely fast event when they |
| contain hundreds of thousands of entries, making geolocation very cheap and easy |
| to set up. |
| |
| |
| 3.3.9. Basic features : ACLs and conditions |
| ------------------------------------------- |
| |
| Most operations in HAProxy can be made conditional. Conditions are built by |
| combining multiple ACLs using logic operators (AND, OR, NOT). Each ACL is a |
| series of tests based on the following elements : |
| |
| - a sample fetch method to retrieve the element to test ; |
| |
| - an optional series of converters to transform the element ; |
| |
| - a list of patterns to match against ; |
| |
| - a matching method to indicate how to compare the patterns with the sample |
| |
| For example, the sample may be taken from the HTTP "Host" header, it could then |
| be converted to lower case, then matched against a number of regex patterns |
| using the regex matching method. |
| |
| Technically, ACLs are built on the same core as the maps, they share the exact |
| same internal structure, pattern matching methods and performance. The only real |
| difference is that instead of returning a sample, they only return "found" or |
| or "not found". In terms of usage, ACL patterns may be declared inline in the |
| configuration file and do not require their own file. ACLs may be named for ease |
| of use or to make configurations understandable. A named ACL may be declared |
| multiple times and it will evaluate all definitions in turn until one matches. |
| |
| About 13 different pattern matching methods are provided, among which IP address |
| mask, integer ranges, substrings, regex. They work like functions, and just like |
| with any programming language, only what is needed is evaluated, so when a |
| condition involving an OR is already true, next ones are not evaluated, and |
| similarly when a condition involving an AND is already false, the rest of the |
| condition is not evaluated. |
| |
| There is no practical limit to the number of declared ACLs, and a handful of |
| commonly used ones are provided. However experience has shown that setups using |
| a lot of named ACLs are quite hard to troubleshoot and that sometimes using |
| anynmous ACLs inline is easier as it requires less references out of the scope |
| being analysed. |
| |
| |
| 3.3.10. Basic features : Content switching |
| ------------------------------------------ |
| |
| HAProxy implements a mechanism known as content-based switching. The principle |
| is that a connection or request arrives on a frontend, then the information |
| carried with this request or connection are processed, and at this point it is |
| possible to write ACLs-based conditions making use of these information to |
| decide what backend will process the request. Thus the traffic is directed to |
| one backend or another based on the request's contents. The most common example |
| consists in using the Host header and/or elements from the path (sub-directories |
| or file-name extensions) to decide whether an HTTP request targets a static |
| object or the application, and to route static objects traffic to a backend made |
| of fast and light servers, and all the remaining traffic to a more complex |
| application server, thus constituting a fine-grained virtual hosting solution. |
| This is quite convenient to make multiple technologies coexist as a more global |
| solution. |
| |
| Another use case of content-switching consists in using different load balancing |
| algorithms depending on various criteria. A cache may use a URI hash while an |
| application would use round robin. |
| |
| Last but not least, it allows multiple customers to use a small share of a |
| common resource by enforcing per-backend (thus per-customer connection limits). |
| |
| Content switching rules scale very well, though their performance may depend on |
| the number and complexity of the ACLs in use. But it is also possible to write |
| dynamic content switching rules where a sample value directly turns into a |
| backend name and without making use of ACLs at all. Such configurations have |
| been reported to work fine at least with 300000 backends in production. |
| |
| |
| 3.3.11. Basic features : Stick-tables |
| ------------------------------------- |
| |
| Stick-tables are commonly used to store stickiness information, that is, to keep |
| a reference to the server a certain visitor was directed to. The key is then the |
| identifier associated with the visitor (its source address, the SSL ID of the |
| connection, an HTTP or RDP cookie, the customer number extracted from the URL or |
| from the payload, ...) and the stored value is then the server's identifier. |
| |
| Stick tables may use 3 different types of samples for their keys : integers, |
| strings and addresses. Only one stick-table may be referenced in a proxy, and it |
| is designated everywhere with the proxy name. Up to 8 key may be tracked in |
| parallel. The server identifier is committed during request or response |
| processing once both the key and the server are known. |
| |
| Stick-table contents may be replicated in active-active mode with other HAProxy |
| nodes known as "peers" as well as with the new process during a reload operation |
| so that all load balancing nodes share the same information and take the same |
| routing decision if a client's requests are spread over multiple nodes. |
| |
| Since stick-tables are indexed on what allows to recognize a client, they are |
| often also used to store extra information such as per-client statistics. The |
| extra statistics take some extra space and need to be explicitly declared. The |
| type of statistics that may be stored includes the input and output bandwidth, |
| the number of concurrent connections, the connection rate and count over a |
| period, the amount and frequency of errors, some specific tags and counters, |
| etc... In order to support keeping such information without being forced to |
| stick to a given server, a special "tracking" feature is implemented and allows |
| to track up to 3 simultaneous keys from different tables at the same time |
| regardless of stickiness rules. Each stored statistics may be searched, dumped |
| and cleared from the CLI and adds to the live troubleshooting capabilities. |
| |
| While this mechanism can be used to surclass a returning visitor or to adjust |
| the delivered quality of service depending on good or bad behaviour, it is |
| mostly used to fight against service abuse and more generally DDoS as it allows |
| to build complex models to detect certain bad behaviours at a high processing |
| speed. |
| |
| |
| 3.3.12. Basic features : Formated strings |
| ----------------------------------------- |
| |
| There are many places where HAProxy needs to manipulate character strings, such |
| as logs, redirects, header additions, and so on. In order to provide the |
| greatest flexibility, the notion of formated strings was introduced, initially |
| for logging purposes, which explains why it's still called "log-format". These |
| strings contain escape characters allowing to introduce various dynamic data |
| including variables and sample fetch expressions into strings, and even to |
| adjust the encoding while the result is being turned into a string (for example, |
| adding quotes). This provides a powerful way to build header contents or to |
| customize log lines. Additionally, in order to remain simple to build most |
| common strings, about 50 special tags are provided as shortcuts for information |
| commonly used in logs. |
| |
| |
| 3.3.13. Basic features : HTTP rewriting and redirection |
| ------------------------------------------------------- |
| |
| Installing a load balancer in front of an application that was never designed |
| for this can be a challenging task without the proper tools. One of the most |
| commonly requested operation in this case is to adjust requests and response |
| headers to make the load balancer appear as the origin server and to fix hard |
| coded information. This comes with changing the path in requests (which is |
| strongly advised against), modifying Host header field, modifying the Location |
| response header field for redirects, modifying the path and domain attribute |
| for cookies, and so on. It also happens that a number of servers are somewhat |
| verbose and tend to leak too much information in the response, making them more |
| vulnerable to targetted attacks. While it's theorically not the role of a load |
| balancer to clean this up, in practice it's located at the best place in the |
| infrastructure to guarantee that everything is cleaned up. |
| |
| Similarly, sometimes the load balancer will have to intercept some requests and |
| respond with a redirect to a new target URL. While some people tend to confuse |
| redirects and rewriting, these are two completely different concepts, since the |
| rewriting makes the client and the server see different things (and disagree on |
| the location of the page being visited) while redirects ask the client to visit |
| the new URL so that it sees the same location as the server. |
| |
| In order to do this, HAProxy supports various possibilities for rewriting and |
| redirect, among which : |
| |
| - regex-based URL and header rewriting in requests and responses. Regex are |
| the most commonly used tool to modify header values since they're easy to |
| manipulate and well understood; |
| |
| - headers may also be appended, deleted or replaced based on formated strings |
| so that it is possible to pass information there (eg: client side TLS |
| algorithm and cipher); |
| |
| - HTTP redirects can use any 3xx code to a relative, absolute, or completely |
| dynamic (formated string) URI; |
| |
| - HTTP redirects also support some extra options such as setting or clearing |
| a specific cookie, dropping the query string, appending a slash if missing, |
| and so on; |
| |
| - all operations support ACL-based conditions; |
| |
| |
| 3.3.14. Basic features : Server protection |
| ------------------------------------------ |
| |
| HAProxy does a lot to maximize service availability, and for this it deploys |
| large efforts to protect servers against overloading and attacks. The first |
| and most important point is that only complete and valid requests are forwarded |
| to the servers. The initial reason is that HAProxy needs to find the protocol |
| elements it needs to stay synchronized with the byte stream, and the second |
| reason is that until the request is complete, there is no way to know if some |
| elements will change its semantics. The direct benefit from this is that servers |
| are not exposed to invalid or incomplete requests. This is a very effective |
| protection against slowloris attacks, which have almost no impact on HAProxy. |
| |
| Another important point is that HAProxy contains buffers to store requests and |
| responses, and that by only sending a request to a server when it's complete and |
| by reading the whole response very quickly from the local network, the server |
| side connection is used for a very short time and this preserves server |
| resources as much as possible. |
| |
| A direct extension to this is that HAProxy can artificially limit the number of |
| concurrent connections or outstanding requests to a server, which guarantees |
| that the server will never be overloaded even if it continuously runs at 100% of |
| its capacity during traffic spikes. All excess requests will simply be queued to |
| be processed when one slot is released. In the end, this huge resource savings |
| most often ensures so much better server response times that it ends up actually |
| being faster than by overloading the server. Queued requests may be redispatched |
| to other servers, or even aborted in queue when the client aborts, which also |
| protects the servers against the "reload effect", where each click on "reload" |
| by a visitor on a slow-loading page usually induces a new request and maintains |
| the server in an overloaded state. |
| |
| The slow-start mechanism also protects restarting servers against high traffic |
| levels while they're still finalizing their startup or compiling some classes. |
| |
| Regarding the protocol-level protection, it is possible to relax the HTTP parser |
| to accept non stardard-compliant but harmless requests or responses and even to |
| fix them. This allows bogus applications to be accessible while a fix is being |
| developped. In parallel, offending messages are completely captured with a |
| detailed report that help developers spot the issue in the application. The most |
| dangerous protocol violations are properly detected and dealt with and fixed. |
| For example malformed requests or responses with two Content-length headers are |
| either fixed if the values are exactly the same, or rejected if they differ, |
| since it becomes a security problem. Protocol inspection is not limited to HTTP, |
| it is also available for other protocols like TLS or RDP. |
| |
| When a protocol violation or attack is detected, there are various options to |
| respond to the user, such as returning the common "HTTP 400 bad request", |
| closing the connection with a TCP reset, faking an error after a long delay |
| ("tarpit") to confuse the attacker. All of these contribute to protecting the |
| servers by discouraging the offending client from pursuing an attack that |
| becomes very expensive to maintain. |
| |
| HAProxy also proposes some more advanced options to protect against accidental |
| data leaks and session crossing. Not only it can log suspicious server responses |
| but it will also log and optionally block a response which might affect a given |
| visitors' confidentiality. One such example is a cacheable cookie appearing in a |
| cacheable response and which may result in an intermediary cache to deliver it |
| to another visitor, causing an accidental session sharing. |
| |
| |
| 3.3.15. Basic features : Logging |
| -------------------------------- |
| |
| Logging is an extremely important feature for a load balancer, first because a |
| load balancer is often accused of the trouble it reveals, and second because it |
| is placed at a critical point in an infrastructure where all normal and abnormal |
| activity needs to be analysed and correlated with other components. |
| |
| HAProxy provides very detailed logs, with millisecond accuracy and the exact |
| connection accept time that can be searched in firewalls logs (eg: for NAT |
| correlation). By default, TCP and HTTP logs are quite detailed an contain |
| everything needed for troubleshooting, such as source IP address and port, |
| frontend, backend, server, timers (request receipt duration, queue duration, |
| connection setup time, response headers time, data transfer time), global |
| process state, connection counts, queue status, retries count, detailed |
| stickiness actions and disconnect reasons, header captures with a safe output |
| encoding. It is then possible to extend or replace this format to include any |
| sampled data, variables, captures, resulting in very detailed information. For |
| example it is possible to log the number cumulated requests for this client or |
| the number of different URLs for the client. |
| |
| The log level may be adjusted per request using standard ACLs, so it is possible |
| to automatically silent some logs considered as pollution and instead raise |
| warnings when some abnormal behaviour happen for a small part of the traffic |
| (eg: too many URLs or HTTP errors for a source address). Administrative logs are |
| also emitted with their own levels to inform about the loss or recovery of a |
| server for example. |
| |
| Each frontend and backend may use multiple independant log outputs, which eases |
| multi-tenancy. Logs are preferably sent over UDP, maybe JSON-encoded, and are |
| truncated after a configurable line length in order to guarantee delivery. |
| |
| |
| 3.3.16. Basic features : Statistics |
| ----------------------------------- |
| |
| HAProxy provides a web-based statistics reporting interface with authentication, |
| security levels and scopes. It is thus possible to provide each hosted customer |
| with his own page showing only his own instances. This page can be located in a |
| hidden URL part of the regular web site so that no new port needs to be opened. |
| This page may also report the availability of other HAProxy nodes so that it is |
| easy to spot if everything works as expected at a glance. The view is synthetic |
| with a lot of details accessible (such as error causes, last access and last |
| change duration, etc), which are also accessible as a CSV table that other tools |
| may import to draw graphs. The page may self-refresh to be used as a monitoring |
| page on a large display. In administration mode, the page also allows to change |
| server state to ease maintenance operations. |
| |
| |
| 3.4. Advanced features |
| ---------------------- |
| |
| 3.4.1. Advanced features : Management |
| ------------------------------------- |
| |
| HAProxy is designed to remain extremely stable and safe to manage in a regular |
| production environment. It is provided as a single executable file which doesn't |
| require any installation process. Multiple versions can easily coexist, meaning |
| that it's possible (and recommended) to upgrade instances progressively by |
| order of criticity instead of migrating all of them at once. Configuration files |
| are easily versionned. Configuration checking is done off-line so it doesn't |
| require to restart a service that will possibly fail. During configuration |
| checks, a number of advanced mistakes may be detected (eg: for example, a rule |
| hiding another one, or stickiness that will not work) and detailed warnings and |
| configuration hints are proposed to fix them. Backwards configuration file |
| compatibility goes very far away in time, with version 1.5 still fully |
| supporting configurations for versions 1.1 written 13 years before, and 1.6 |
| only dropping support for almost unused, obsolete keywords that can be done |
| differently. The configuration and software upgrade mechanism is smooth and non |
| disruptive in that it allows old and new processes to coexist on the system, |
| each handling its own connections. System status, build options and library |
| compatibility are reported on startup. |
| |
| Some advanced features allow an application administrator to smoothly stop a |
| server, detect when there's no activity on it anymore, then take it off-line, |
| stop it, upgrade it and ensure it doesn't take any traffic while being upgraded, |
| then test it again through the normal path without opening it to the public, and |
| all of this without touching HAProxy at all. This ensures that even complicated |
| production operations may be done during opening hours with all technical |
| resources available. |
| |
| The process tries to save resources as much as possible, uses memory pools to |
| save on allocation time and limit memory fragmentation, releases payload buffers |
| as soon as their contents are sent, and supports enforcing strong memory limits |
| above which connections have to wait for a buffer to become available instead of |
| allocating more memory. This system helps guarantee memory usage in certain |
| strict environments. |
| |
| A command line interface (CLI) is available as a UNIX or TCP socket, to perform |
| a number of operations and to retrieve troubleshooting information. Everything |
| done on this socket doesn't require a configuration change, so it is mostly used |
| for temporary changes. Using this interface it is possible to change a server's |
| address, weight and status, to consult statistics and clear counters, dump and |
| clear stickiness tables, possibly selectively by key criteria, dump and kill |
| client-side and server-side connections, dump captured errors with a detailed |
| analysis of the exact cause and location of the error, dump, add and remove |
| entries from ACLs and maps, update TLS shared secrets, apply connection limits |
| and rate limits on the fly to arbitrary frontends (useful in shared hosting |
| environments), and disable a specific frontend to release a listening port |
| (useful when daytime operations are forbidden and a fix is needed nonetheless). |
| |
| For environments where SNMP is mandatory, at least two agents exist, one is |
| provided with the HAProxy sources and relies on the Net-SNMP perl module. |
| Another one is provided with the commercial packages and doesn't require Perl. |
| Both are roughly equivalent in terms of coverage. |
| |
| It is often recommended to install 4 utilities on the machine where HAProxy is |
| deployed : |
| |
| - socat (in order to connect to the CLI, though certain forks of netcat can |
| also do it to some extents); |
| |
| - halog from the latest HAProxy version : this is the log analysis tool, it |
| parses native TCP and HTTP logs extremely fast (1 to 2 GB per second) and |
| extracts useful information and statistics such as requests per URL, per |
| source address, URLs sorted by response time or error rate, termination |
| codes etc... It was designed to be deployed on the production servers to |
| help troubleshoot live issues so it has to be there ready to be used; |
| |
| - tcpdump : this is highly recommended to take the network traces needed to |
| troubleshoot an issue that was made visible in the logs. There is a moment |
| where application and haproxy's analysis will diverge and the network traces |
| are the only way to say who's right and who's wrong. It's also fairly common |
| to detect bugs in network stacks and hypervisors thanks to tcpdump; |
| |
| - strace : it is tcpdump's companion. It will report what HAProxy really sees |
| and will help sort out the issues the operating system is responsible for |
| from the ones HAProxy is responsible for. Strace is often requested when a |
| bug in HAProxy is suspected; |
| |
| |
| 3.4.2. Advanced features : System-specific capabilities |
| ------------------------------------------------------- |
| |
| Depending on the operating system HAProxy is deployed on, certain extra features |
| may be available or needed. While it is supported on a number of platforms, |
| HAProxy is primarily developped on Linux, which explains why some features are |
| only available on this platform. |
| |
| The transparent bind and connect features, the support for binding connections |
| to a specific network interface, as well as the ability to bind multiple |
| processes to the same IP address and ports are only available on Linux and BSD |
| systems, though only Linux performs a kernel-side load balancing of the incoming |
| requests between the available processes. |
| |
| On Linux, there are also a number of extra features and optimizations including |
| support for network namespaces (also known as "containers") allowing HAProxy to |
| be a gateway between all containers, the ability to set the MSS, Netfilter marks |
| and IP TOS field on the client side connection, support for TCP FastOpen on the |
| listening side, TCP user timeouts to let the kernel quickly kill connections |
| when it detects the client has disappeared before the configured timeouts, TCP |
| splicing to let the kernel forward data between the two sides of a connections |
| thus avoiding multiple memory copies, the ability to enable the "defer-accept" |
| bind option to only get notified of an incoming connection once data become |
| available in the kernel buffers, and the ability to send the request with the |
| ACK confirming a connect (sometimes called "biggy-back") which is enabled with |
| the "tcp-smart-connect" option. On Linux, HAProxy also takes great care of |
| manipulating the TCP delayed ACKs to save as many packets as possible on the |
| network. |
| |
| Some systems have an unreliable clock which jumps back and forth in the past |
| and in the future. This used to happen with some NUMA systems where multiple |
| processors didn't see the exact same time of day, and recently it became more |
| common in virtualized environments where the virtual clock has no relation with |
| the real clock, resulting in huge time jumps (sometimes up to 30 seconds have |
| been observed). This causes a lot of trouble with respect to timeout enforcement |
| in general. Due to this flaw of these systems, HAProxy maintains its own |
| monotonic clock which is based on the system's clock but where drift is measured |
| and compensated for. This ensures that even with a very bad system clock, timers |
| remain reasonably accurate and timeouts continue to work. Note that this problem |
| affects all the software running on such systems and is not specific to HAProxy. |
| The common effects are spurious timeouts or application freezes. Thus if this |
| behaviour is detected on a system, it must be fixed, regardless of the fact that |
| HAProxy protects itself against it. |
| |
| |
| 3.4.3. Advanced features : Scripting |
| ------------------------------------ |
| |
| HAProxy can be built with support for the Lua embedded language, which opens a |
| wide area of new possibilities related to complex manipulation of requests or |
| responses, routing decisions, statistics processing and so on. Using Lua it is |
| even possible to establish parallel connections to other servers to exchange |
| information. This way it becomes possible (though complex) to develop an |
| authentication system for example. Please refer to the documentation in the file |
| "doc/lua-api/index.rst" for more information on how to use Lua. |
| |
| |
| 3.5. Sizing |
| ----------- |
| |
| Typical CPU usage figures show 15% of the processing time spent in HAProxy |
| versus 85% in the kernel in TCP or HTTP close mode, and about 30% for HAProxy |
| versus 70% for the kernel in HTTP keep-alive mode. This means that the operating |
| system and its tuning have a strong impact on the global performance. |
| |
| Usages vary a lot between users, some focus on bandwidth, other ones on request |
| rate, others on connection concurrency, others on SSL performance. this section |
| aims at providing a few elements to help in this task. |
| |
| It is important to keep in mind that every operation comes with a cost, so each |
| individual operation adds its overhead on top of the other ones, which may be |
| negligible in certain circumstances, and which may dominate in other cases. |
| |
| When processing the requests from a connection, we can say that : |
| |
| - forwarding data costs less than parsing request or response headers; |
| |
| - parsing request or response headers cost less than establishing then closing |
| a connection to a server; |
| |
| - establishing an closing a connection costs less than a TLS resume operation; |
| |
| - a TLS resume operation costs less than a full TLS handshake with a key |
| computation; |
| |
| - an idle connection costs less CPU than a connection whose buffers hold data; |
| |
| - a TLS context costs even more memory than a connection with data; |
| |
| So in practice, it is cheaper to process payload bytes than header bytes, thus |
| it is easier to achieve high network bandwidth with large objects (few requests |
| per volume unit) than with small objects (many requests per volume unit). This |
| explains why maximum bandwidth is always measured with large objects, while |
| request rate or connection rates are measured with small objects. |
| |
| Some operations scale well on multiple process spread over multiple processors, |
| and others don't scale as well. Network bandwidth doesn't scale very far because |
| the CPU is rarely the bottleneck for large objects, it's mostly the network |
| bandwidth and data busses to reach the network interfaces. The connection rate |
| doesn't scale well over multiple processors due to a few locks in the system |
| when dealing with the local ports table. The request rate over persistent |
| connections scales very well as it doesn't involve much memory nor network |
| bandwidth and doesn't require to access locked structures. TLS key computation |
| scales very well as it's totally CPU-bound. TLS resume scales moderately well, |
| but reaches its limits around 4 processes where the overhead of accessing the |
| shared table offsets the small gains expected from more power. |
| |
| The performance numbers one can expect from a very well tuned system are in the |
| following range. It is important to take them as orders of magnitude and to |
| expect significant variations in any direction based on the processor, IRQ |
| setting, memory type, network interface type, operating system tuning and so on. |
| |
| The following numbers were found on a Core i7 running at 3.7 GHz equiped with |
| a dual-port 10 Gbps NICs running Linux kernel 3.10, HAProxy 1.6 and OpenSSL |
| 1.0.2. HAProxy was running as a single process on a single dedicated CPU core, |
| and two extra cores were dedicated to network interrupts : |
| |
| - 20 Gbps of maximum network bandwidth in clear text for objects 256 kB or |
| higher, 10 Gbps for 41kB or higher; |
| |
| - 4.6 Gbps of TLS traffic using AES256-GCM cipher with large objects; |
| |
| - 83000 TCP connections per second from client to server; |
| |
| - 82000 HTTP connections per second from client to server; |
| |
| - 97000 HTTP requests per second in server-close mode (keep-alive with the |
| client, close with the server); |
| |
| - 243000 HTTP requests per second in end-to-end keep-alive mode; |
| |
| - 300000 filtered TCP connections per second (anti-DDoS) |
| |
| - 160000 HTTPS requests per second in keep-alive mode over persistent TLS |
| connections; |
| |
| - 13100 HTTPS requests per second using TLS resumed connections; |
| |
| - 1300 HTTPS connections per second using TLS connections renegociated with |
| RSA2048; |
| |
| - 20000 concurrent saturated connections per GB of RAM, including the memory |
| required for system buffers; it is possible to do better with careful tuning |
| but this setting it easy to achieve. |
| |
| - about 8000 concurrent TLS connections (client-side only) per GB of RAM, |
| including the memory required for system buffers; |
| |
| - about 5000 concurrent end-to-end TLS connections (both sides) per GB of |
| RAM including the memory required for system buffers; |
| |
| Thus a good rule of thumb to keep in mind is that the request rate is divided |
| by 10 between TLS keep-alive and TLS resume, and between TLS resume and TLS |
| renegociation, while it's only divided by 3 between HTTP keep-alive and HTTP |
| close. Another good rule of thumb is to remember that a high frequency core |
| with AES instructions can do around 5 Gbps of AES-GCM per core. |
| |
| Having more core rarely helps (except for TLS) and is even counter-productive |
| due to the lower frequency. In general a small number of high frequency cores |
| is better. |
| |
| Another good rule of thumb is to consider that on the same server, HAProxy will |
| be able to saturate : |
| |
| - about 5-10 static file servers or caching proxies; |
| |
| - about 100 anti-virus proxies; |
| |
| - and about 100 to 1000 application servers depending on the technology in use. |
| |
| |
| 3.6. How to get HAProxy |
| ----------------------- |
| |
| HAProxy is an opensource project covered by the GPLv2 license, meaning that |
| everyone is allowed to redistribute it provided that access to the sources is |
| also provided upon request, especially if any modifications were made. |
| |
| HAProxy evolves as a main development branch called "master" or "mainline", from |
| which new branches are derived once the code is considered stable. A lot of web |
| sites run some development branches in production on a voluntarily basis, either |
| to participate to the project or because they need a bleeding edge feature, and |
| their feedback is highly valuable to fix bugs and judge the overall quality and |
| stability of the version being developped. |
| |
| The new branches that are created when the code is stable enough constitute a |
| stable version and are generally maintained for several years, so that there is |
| no emergency to migrate to a newer branch even when you're not on the latest. |
| Once a stable branch is issued, it may only receive bug fixes, and very rarely |
| minor feature updates when that makes users' life easier. All fixes that go into |
| a stable branch necessarily come from the master branch. This guarantees that no |
| fix will be lost after an upgrade. For this reason, if you fix a bug, please |
| make the patch against the master branch, not the stable branch. You may even |
| discover it was already fixed. This process also ensures that regressions in a |
| stable branch are extremely rare, so there is never any excuse for not upgrading |
| to the latest version in your current branch. |
| |
| Branches are numberred with two digits delimited with a dot, such as "1.6". A |
| complete version includes one or two sub-version numbers indicating the level of |
| fix. For example, version 1.5.14 is the 14th fix release in branch 1.5 after |
| version 1.5.0 was issued. It contains 126 fixes for individual bugs, 24 updates |
| on the documentation, and 75 other backported patches, most of which were needed |
| to fix the aforementionned 126 bugs. An existing feature may never be modified |
| nor removed in a stable branch, in order to guarantee that upgrades within the |
| same branch will always be harmless. |
| |
| HAProxy is available from multiple sources, at different release rhythms : |
| |
| - The official community web site : http://www.haproxy.org/ : this site |
| provides the sources of the latest development release, all stable releases, |
| as well as nightly snapshots for each branch. The release cycle is not fast, |
| several months between stable releases, or between development snapshots. |
| Very old versions are still supported there. Everything is provided as |
| sources only, so whatever comes from there needs to be rebuilt and/or |
| repackaged; |
| |
| - A number of operating systems such as Linux distributions and BSD ports. |
| These systems generally provide long-term maintained versions which do not |
| always contain all the fixes from the official ones, but which at least |
| contain the critical fixes. It often is a good option for most users who do |
| not seek advanced configurations and just want to keep updates easy; |
| |
| - Commercial versions from http://www.haproxy.com/ : these are supported |
| professional packages built for various operating systems or provided as |
| appliances, based on the latest stable versions and including a number of |
| features backported from the next release for which there is a strong |
| demand. It is the best option for users seeking the latest features with |
| the reliability of a stable branch, the fastest response time to fix bugs, |
| or simply support contracts on top of an opensource product; |
| |
| |
| In order to ensure that the version you're using is the latest one in your |
| branch, you need to proceed this way : |
| |
| - verify which HAProxy executable you're running : some systems ship it by |
| default and administrators install their versions somewhere else on the |
| system, so it is important to verify in the startup scripts which one is |
| used; |
| |
| - determine which source your HAProxy version comes from. For this, it's |
| generally sufficient to type "haproxy -v". A development version will |
| appear like this, with the "dev" word after the branch number : |
| |
| HA-Proxy version 1.6-dev3-385ecc-68 2015/08/18 |
| |
| A stable version will appear like this, as well as unmodified stable |
| versions provided by operating system vendors : |
| |
| HA-Proxy version 1.5.14 2015/07/02 |
| |
| And a nightly snapshot of a stable version will appear like this with an |
| hexadecimal sequence after the version, and with the date of the snapshot |
| instead of the date of the release : |
| |
| HA-Proxy version 1.5.14-e4766ba 2015/07/29 |
| |
| Any other format may indicate a system-specific package with its own |
| patch set. For example HAProxy Enterprise versions will appear with the |
| following format (<branch>-<latest commit>-<revision>) : |
| |
| HA-Proxy version 1.5.0-994126-357 2015/07/02 |
| |
| - for system-specific packages, you have to check with your vendor's package |
| repository or update system to ensure that your system is still supported, |
| and that fixes are still provided for your branch. For community versions |
| coming from haproxy.org, just visit the site, verify the status of your |
| branch and compare the latest version with yours to see if you're on the |
| latest one. If not you can upgrade. If your branch is not maintained |
| anymore, you're definitely very late and will have to consider an upgrade |
| to a more recent branch (carefully read the README when doing so). |
| |
| HAProxy will have to be updated according to the source it came from. Usually it |
| follows the system vendor's way of upgrading a package. If it was taken from |
| sources, please read the README file in the sources directory after extracting |
| the sources and follow the instructions for your operating system. |
| |
| |
| 4. Companion products and alternatives |
| -------------------------------------- |
| |
| HAProxy integrates fairly well with certain products listed below, which is why |
| they are mentionned here even if not directly related to HAProxy. |
| |
| |
| 4.1. Apache HTTP server |
| ----------------------- |
| |
| Apache is the de-facto standard HTTP server. It's a very complete and modular |
| project supporting both file serving and dynamic contents. It can serve as a |
| frontend for some application servers. In can even proxy requests and cache |
| responses. In all of these use cases, a front load balancer is commonly needed. |
| Apache can work in various modes, certain being heavier than other ones. Certain |
| modules still require the heavier pre-forked model and will prevent Apache from |
| scaling well with a high number of connections. In this case HAProxy can provide |
| a tremendous help by enforcing the per-server connection limits to a safe value |
| and will significantly speed up the server and preserve its resources that will |
| be better used by the application. |
| |
| Apache can extract the client's address from the X-Forwarded-For header by using |
| the "mod_rpaf" extension. HAProxy will automatically feed this header when |
| "option forwardfor" is specified in its configuration. HAProxy may also offer a |
| nice protection to Apache when exposed to the internet, where it will better |
| resist to a wide number of types of DoS. |
| |
| |
| 4.2. NGINX |
| ---------- |
| |
| NGINX is the second de-facto standard HTTP server. Just like Apache, it covers a |
| wide range of features. NGINX is built on a similar model as HAProxy so it has |
| no problem dealing with tens of thousands of concurrent connections. When used |
| as a gateway to some applications (eg: using the included PHP FPM), it can often |
| be beneficial to set up some frontend connection limiting to reduce the load |
| on the PHP application. HAProxy will clearly be useful there both as a regular |
| load balancer and as the traffic regulator to speed up PHP by decongestionning |
| it. Also since both products use very little CPU thanks to their event-driven |
| architecture, it's often easy to install both of them on the same system. NGINX |
| implements HAProxy's PROXY protocol, thus it is easy for HAProxy to pass the |
| client's connection information to NGINX so that the application gets all the |
| relevant information. Some benchmarks have also shown that for large static |
| file serving, implementing consistent hash on HAProxy in front of NGINX can be |
| beneficial by optimizing the OS' cache hit ratio, which is basically multiplied |
| by the number of server nodes. |
| |
| |
| 4.3. Varnish |
| ------------ |
| |
| Varnish is a smart caching reverse-proxy, probably best described as a web |
| application accelerator. Varnish doesn't implement SSL/TLS and wants to dedicate |
| all of its CPU cycles to what it does best. Varnish also implements HAProxy's |
| PROXY protocol so that HAProxy can very easily be deployed in front of Varnish |
| as an SSL offloader as well as a load balancer and pass it all relevant client |
| information. Also, Varnish naturally supports decompression from the cache when |
| a server has provided a compressed object, but doesn't compress however. HAProxy |
| can then be used to compress outgoing data when backend servers do not implement |
| compression, though it's rarely a good idea to compress on the load balancer |
| unless the traffic is low. |
| |
| When building large caching farms across multiple nodes, HAProxy can make use of |
| consistent URL hashing to intelligently distribute the load to the caching nodes |
| and avoid cache duplication, resulting in a total cache size which is the sum of |
| all caching nodes. |
| |
| |
| 4.4. Alternatives |
| ----------------- |
| |
| Linux Virtual Server (LVS or IPVS) is the layer 4 load balancer included within |
| the Linux kernel. It works at the packet level and handles TCP and UDP. In most |
| cases it's more a complement than an alternative since it doesn't have layer 7 |
| knowledge at all. |
| |
| Pound is another well-known load balancer. It's much simpler and has much less |
| features than HAProxy but for many very basic setups both can be used. Its |
| author has always focused on code auditability first and wants to maintain the |
| set of features low. Its thread-based architecture scales less well with high |
| connection counts, but it's a good product. |
| |
| Pen is a quite light load balancer. It supports SSL, maintains persistence using |
| a fixed-size table of its clients' IP addresses. It supports a packet-oriented |
| mode allowing it to support direct server return and UDP to some extents. It is |
| meant for small loads (the persistence table only has 2048 entries). |
| |
| NGINX can do some load balancing to some extents, though it's clearly not its |
| primary function. Production traffic is used to detect server failures, the |
| load balancing algorithms are more limited, and the stickiness is very limited. |
| But it can make sense in some simple deployment scenarios where it is already |
| present. The good thing is that since it integrates very well with HAProxy, |
| there's nothing wrong with adding HAProxy later when its limits have been faced. |
| |
| Varnish also does some load balancing of its backend servers and does support |
| real health checks. It doesn't implement stickiness however, so just like with |
| NGINX, as long as stickiness is not needed that can be enough to start with. |
| And similarly, since HAProxy and Varnish integrate so well together, it's easy |
| to add it later into the mix to complement the feature set. |
| |