|
Size: 8881
Comment: Added information on Pound for load balancing HTTP.
|
← Revision 26 as of 2012-12-14 17:03:35 ⇥
Size: 2124
Comment: categorize (historical info)
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 1: | Line 1: |
| = Details about the next Hcoop Architecture = | = Details about the next HCoop Architecture = |
| Line 3: | Line 3: |
| This page is intended to facilitate discussion of details relating to our next server architecture. Currently, the first draft of this page, written on Sat Mar 25 10:18:12 EST 2006 by JustinLeitgeb, is based upon discussions from the hcoop mailing list. Please feel free to contribute or change anything here! | This page will serve as the blueprint for the architecture that HCoop is constructing right now, to be colocated at Peer 1. |
| Line 5: | Line 5: |
| == Hcoop Future Network Overview == | <<TableOfContents(2)>> == Network Overview == |
| Line 9: | Line 11: |
| * A fileserver, running AFS which is accessible via ssh only for administrative purposes * A public login and http server, accessible by all members. User files are stored on the fileserver mentioned above. This will host all user pages, including dynamic content. * A server for hcoop needs that most users won't need direct shell access to. This will run Cyrus IMAP, exim, and Apache primarily for hcoop administrative purposes. |
* A back-end server, which will serve IMAP, MySQL, PostgreSQL, primary mail, and AFS. * A public shell server for development and deployment of files to web server. * A public web server, also used for daemon processes written by our users. This will eventually be one node of a web cluster. |
| Line 13: | Line 15: |
| '''Question''': I don't remember deciding on using Cyrus IMAP. We currently use Courier, and I know that the formats the two use are incompatible. I also believe that Cyrus has more overhead needed to get it going, but that it scales better, especially to cases where most e-mail accounts aren't associated with UNIX usernames. Is that why you chose it? The other two daemons you listed are what we already ready. --AdamChlipala | == High-Level Architecture Description == |
| Line 15: | Line 17: |
| '''Comment''': I don't have a reason for putting Cyrus in the list. I did it because I hadn't looked at our present servers to see that they've got Courier on them and I assumed it was Cyrus. I don't know much about IMAP servers in general, so I'm open to whatever the group thinks is best for us, long-term and in the present. --JustinLeitgeb | The new HCoop architecture initially involves three servers; one for user shell logins, one for back-end services, and one for web service. Our goal is to build an architecture that serves us well based on our current needs, and can be expanded for increased capacity in the future with little effort. |
| Line 17: | Line 19: |
| Additionally, we will need certain networking equipment: | Based on this, we should have one shell server that users edit and develop their web sites from. This will allow users to modify files on one web server in the present, and a cluster as we grow. |
| Line 19: | Line 21: |
| * A gigabit switch that will be the initial backbone of the hcoop LAN. * Perhaps (still not finalized in plans) a hardware firewall for the hcoop LAN. Ideas on this from members? |
== Design Goals == |
| Line 22: | Line 23: |
| We should also remember that all of our servers will most likely have at least two NIC's. How can we utilize these best? Some sites have one NIC doing backups or logging, and another handling requests from the Internet. Perhaps we could segment our traffic to two local area networks, one for services to the Internet and another for local file access (i.e., traffic between the two "public" servers and the file server). | We should be able to plug new web servers into our architeture in the future in a manner that doesn't break our software systems. We may also want to think about doing the same thing with shell and file services. |
| Line 24: | Line 25: |
| == Hcoop Future Network Diagrams == | == Physical Network Layout == |
| Line 26: | Line 27: |
| The following are a preliminary version of a network plan that JustinLeitgeb created on March 25, 2006, after discussions on the hcoop.net mailing list. Included in the design is a hardware firewall, which was not finalized in previous discussions. Let's collect thoughts and alternate plans here as we work towards solidifying plans. | This section describes the HCoop physical network layout. |
| Line 28: | Line 29: |
| * [attachment:network_diagram_20060325.dia Network planning diagram in "dia" format for editing] * [attachment:network_diagram_20060325.png Network planning diagram in PNG format for easier viewing] |
=== Physical Network Description === |
| Line 31: | Line 31: |
| == Server Hardware == | Gigabit switch, divided into VLAN for server inter-connections. LAN out to Peer 1. |
| Line 33: | Line 33: |
| This may be a moot point as we are looking for a shop that can give us hardware support, and this may require that we buy their supported machines. However, it seems that many colocation providers will try to push us into a deal where their support consists in a "remote hands" plan where they will fix any reasonably standard hardware that we send to them for an hourly rate. If that is the case, our discussions on possible server hardware on the list may still be valid. Generally, we have decided that what we need in terms of hardware is more or less as follows: | === Physical Network Diagram(s) === |
| Line 35: | Line 35: |
| * Two web servers with at least 1GB of RAM each. Redundancy should include a RAID 1 configuration with two 73 GB drives, and dual power supplies. * One file server with more storage space and room to grow. It doesn't need to be exceptionally fast because of AFS's caching mechanisms. Perhaps a small RAID 5 configuration of 3 x 500 GB SATA devices would be a good place to start. It should certainly be hardware - based RAID so that main CPU power is not needed for read and write operations. JustinLeitgeb suggested a [http://www.3ware.com/products/serial_ata2-9000.asp 3Ware Escalade Controller] in this machine. |
XXX add diagram here. |
| Line 38: | Line 37: |
| The list also discussed hardware vendors. If this isn't a moot point based on our decision of a colo provider with specific needs, the following list of possibilities may still be relevant: | == Software/System Layout == |
| Line 40: | Line 39: |
| * Dell PowerEdge servers. JustinLeitgeb suggested [http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/pedge_1850?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd Dell 1850's] for the web servers, and a [http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/pedge_2850?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd 2850] for the fileserver. One drawback to this server line is that it uses Intel, which is less desireable currently than AMD. However, this server line has been in production for quite a while and it has proven stable in many situations. * Sun fire servers. These machines use AMD processors but are considerably more expensive than comparable Dell machines. == Networking Hardware == |
This deserves the separate page SoftwareArchitecturePlans. |
| Line 45: | Line 41: |
| Here we should talk about the specific networking equipment that we need. Ideas on vendors or models for the gigabit switch? Thoughts on if we should start with a hardware firewall device? Also it was mentioned that we should invest in a serial console for remote access when a machine goes down. Thoughts on this? | === Software/System Description === |
| Line 47: | Line 43: |
| == Backup Configuration == All are in agreement that we need a robust backup plan in our new architecture. It seems that it will include the continued use of [http://www.rsnapshot.org rsnapshot], and that this utility will save even the front-end server data to the fileserver with RAID 5. Additionally, we should have data stored off-site in a manner that allows us to recover, even in the event that we are "rooted". We are looking for backup capabilities in colocation providers. Another option could be to have rsync-style backups to some administrators connection over the Internet, but this might not be tenable given the amount of data, the need for quick restores, etc. Let's continue to edit this section! == Scaling for Redundancy and Performance == The next configuration should be reasonably scaleable, as we are expecting to grow rapidly in size. How should we scale our systems? Although the new configuration, which will start with only three servers, will have many single points of failure, a goal of the Hcoop, Inc. engineering team should be to reduce these to a point where downtime is close to 0%. Following are some ideas about how we can accomplish this: === Web Server Clustering === Lots of shops hide a cluster of web servers behind a virtual IP address for increased capacity and redundancy. Load balancing of this type may be accomplished through round-robin DNS with multiple A records (see [http://www.zytrax.com/books/dns/ch9/rr.html#services HOWTO - Configure Round Robin Load Balancing with DNS] for more info), or perhaps in a more elegant fashion with a single A record pointing to a virtual IP address. Web servers are hit in a round-robin fashion, and any that become unavailable are dynamically marked as "down" in the router. === File Server Clustering === Since Hcoop, Inc. is using AFS, we should look at ways that we can use multiple file servers in a cluster. Perhaps a virtual IP will work here as well, so that the loss of a fileserver doesn't bring down the web servers. Would AFS caching be able to perform the same function for us? === Database Clustering === [http://www.mysql.com/ MySQL] 5.5 supports clustering which helps to achieve higher numbers of queries per second, as well as redundancy in the event that we lose a node. MySQL replication is another option. Web servers would point to a virtual IP in this schema as well, in order to have the loss of a database cluster node be a no-downtime situation (given that load is not too much for the remaining nodes). Both Postgres and Oracle have similar technologies that could be discussed here. === Virtual IP Solutions === All of the clustering methods will probably rely on some method of hiding many machines behind a virtual IP address. Here are some ways that we can accomplish this, along with benefits and disadvantages to each: * [http://www.apsis.ch/pound/ Pound] is an open-source load balancer that would take care of load balancing and failed web servers. According to the Pound home page, it has been tested with up to 5M hits per day. * [http://www.f5.com/ F5 networks builds load balancing routers that support virtual IP addressing] * Something with Linux and IP tables? * Cisco solutions? |
=== Software/System Diagram(s) === |
| Line 81: | Line 48: |
| ---- CategorySystemAdministration CategoryHistorical |
1. Details about the next HCoop Architecture
This page will serve as the blueprint for the architecture that HCoop is constructing right now, to be colocated at Peer 1.
Contents
1.1. Network Overview
The architecture for the next hcoop.net network involves three physical servers:
- A back-end server, which will serve IMAP, MySQL, PostgreSQL, primary mail, and AFS.
- A public shell server for development and deployment of files to web server.
- A public web server, also used for daemon processes written by our users. This will eventually be one node of a web cluster.
1.2. High-Level Architecture Description
The new HCoop architecture initially involves three servers; one for user shell logins, one for back-end services, and one for web service. Our goal is to build an architecture that serves us well based on our current needs, and can be expanded for increased capacity in the future with little effort.
Based on this, we should have one shell server that users edit and develop their web sites from. This will allow users to modify files on one web server in the present, and a cluster as we grow.
1.3. Design Goals
We should be able to plug new web servers into our architeture in the future in a manner that doesn't break our software systems. We may also want to think about doing the same thing with shell and file services.
1.4. Physical Network Layout
This section describes the HCoop physical network layout.
1.4.1. Physical Network Description
Gigabit switch, divided into VLAN for server inter-connections. LAN out to Peer 1.
1.4.2. Physical Network Diagram(s)
XXX add diagram here.
1.5. Software/System Layout
This deserves the separate page SoftwareArchitecturePlans.
1.5.1. Software/System Description
1.5.2. Software/System Diagram(s)
1.6. Related Pages
ColocationPlans is the main page for items related to the new architecture. ColocationPlansServiceProviders provides information about the service providers we are currently looking at.