|
|
|
Load Balancing in gRPC
|
|
|
|
=======================
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Objective
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To design a load balancing API between a gRPC client and a Load Balancer to
|
|
|
|
instruct the client how to send load to multiple backend servers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Background
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prior to any gRPC specifics, we explore some usual ways to approach load
|
|
|
|
balancing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Proxy Model
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Using a proxy provides a solid trustable client that can report load to the load
|
|
|
|
balancing system. Proxies typically require more resources to operate since they
|
|
|
|
have temporary copies of the RPC request and response. This model also increases
|
|
|
|
latency to the RPCs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The proxy model was deemed inefficient when considering request heavy services
|
|
|
|
like storage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Balancing-aware Client
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This thicker client places more of the load balancing logic in the client. For
|
|
|
|
example, the client could contain many load balancing policies (Round Robin,
|
|
|
|
Random, etc) used to select servers from a list. In this model, a list of
|
|
|
|
servers would be either statically configured in the client, provided by the
|
|
|
|
name resolution system, an external load balancer, etc. In any case, the client
|
|
|
|
is responsible for choosing the preferred server from the list.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of the drawbacks of this approach is writing and maintaining the load
|
|
|
|
balancing policies in multiple languages and/or versions of the clients. These
|
|
|
|
policies can be fairly complicated. Some of the algorithms also require client
|
|
|
|
to server communication so the client would need to get thicker to support
|
|
|
|
additional RPCs to get health or load information in addition to sending RPCs
|
|
|
|
for user requests.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It would also significantly complicate the client's code: the new design hides
|
|
|
|
the load balancing complexity of multiple layers and presents it as a simple
|
|
|
|
list of servers to the client.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### External Load Balancing Service
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The client load balancing code is kept simple and portable, implementing
|
|
|
|
well-known algorithms (ie, Round Robin) for server selection.
|
|
|
|
Complex load balancing algorithms are instead provided by the load balancer. The
|
|
|
|
client relies on the load balancer to provide _load balancing configuration_ and
|
|
|
|
_the list of servers_ to which the client should send requests. The balancer
|
|
|
|
updates the server list as needed to balance the load as well as handle server
|
|
|
|
unavailability or health issues. The load balancer will make any necessary
|
|
|
|
complex decisions and inform the client. The load balancer may communicate with
|
|
|
|
the backend servers to collect load and health information.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Requirements
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Simple API and client
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The gRPC client load balancing code must be simple and portable. The client
|
|
|
|
should only contain simple algorithms (ie Round Robin) for server selection. For
|
|
|
|
complex algorithms, the client should rely on a load balancer to provide load
|
|
|
|
balancing configuration and the list of servers to which the client should send
|
|
|
|
requests. The balancer will update the server list as needed to balance the load
|
|
|
|
as well as handle server unavailability or health issues. The load balancer will
|
|
|
|
make any necessary complex decisions and inform the client. The load balancer
|
|
|
|
may communicate with the backend servers to collect load and health information.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Security
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The load balancer may be separate from the actual server backends and a
|
|
|
|
compromise of the load balancer should only lead to a compromise of the
|
|
|
|
loadbalancing functionality. In other words, a compromised load balancer should
|
|
|
|
not be able to cause a client to trust a (potentially malicious) backend server
|
|
|
|
any more than in a comparable situation without loadbalancing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Proposed Architecture
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The gRPC load balancing implements the external load balancing server approach:
|
|
|
|
an external load balancer provides simple clients with an up-to-date list of
|
|
|
|
servers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![image](images/load_balancing_design.png)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. On startup, the gRPC client issues a name resolution request for the service.
|
|
|
|
The name will resolve to one or more IP addresses to gRPC servers, a hint on
|
|
|
|
whether the IP address(es) point to a load balancer or not, and also return a
|
|
|
|
client config.
|
|
|
|
2. The gRPC client connects to a gRPC Server.
|
|
|
|
1. If the name resolution has hinted that the endpoint is a load balancer,
|
|
|
|
the client will attempt to open a stream to the load balancer service. The
|
|
|
|
server may respond in only one of the following ways.
|
|
|
|
1. `status::UNIMPLEMENTED`. There is no loadbalancing in use. The client
|
|
|
|
call will fail.
|
|
|
|
1. "I am a Load Balancer and here is the server list." (Goto Step 4.)
|
|
|
|
1. "Please contact Load Balancer X" (See Step 3.) The client will close
|
|
|
|
this connection and cancel the stream.
|
|
|
|
1. If the server fails to respond, the client will wait for some timeout
|
|
|
|
and then re-resolve the name (process to Step 1 above).
|
|
|
|
1. If the name resolution has not hinted that the endpoint is a load
|
|
|
|
balancer, the client connects directly to the service it wants to talk to.
|
|
|
|
3. The gRPC client opens a separate connection to the Load Balancer. If this
|
|
|
|
fails, it will go back to step 1 and try another address.
|
|
|
|
1. During channel initialization to the Load Balancer, the client will
|
|
|
|
attempt to open a stream to the Load Balancer service.
|
|
|
|
1. The load balancer will return a server list to the gRPC client.
|
|
|
|
Optional: The load balancer will also open channels to the gRPC servers if
|
|
|
|
load reporting is needed.
|
|
|
|
4. The gRPC client will send RPCs to the gRPC servers contained in the server
|
|
|
|
list from the load balancer.
|
|
|
|
5. Optional: The gRPC servers may periodically report load to the Load Balancer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Client
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When establishing a gRPC _stream_ to the balancer, the client will send an initial
|
|
|
|
request to the load balancer (via a regular gRPC message). The load balancer
|
|
|
|
will respond with client config (including, for example, settings for flow
|
|
|
|
control, RPC deadlines, etc.) or a redirect to another load balancer. If the
|
|
|
|
balancer did not redirect the client, it will then send a list of servers to the
|
|
|
|
client. The client will contain simple load balancing logic for choosing the
|
|
|
|
next server when it needs to send a request.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Load Balancer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Load Balancer is responsible for providing the client with a list of servers
|
|
|
|
and client RPC parameters. The balancer chooses when to update the list of
|
|
|
|
servers and can decide whether to provide a complete list, a subset, or a
|
|
|
|
specific list of “picked” servers in a particular order. The balancer can
|
|
|
|
optionally provide an expiration interval after which the server list should no
|
|
|
|
longer be trusted and should be updated by the balancer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The load balancer may open reporting streams to each server contained in the
|
|
|
|
server list. These streams are primarily used for load reporting. For example,
|
|
|
|
Weighted Round Robin requires that the servers report utilization to the load
|
|
|
|
balancer in order to compute the next list of servers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Server
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The gRPC Server is responsible for answering RPC requests and providing
|
|
|
|
responses to the client. The server will also report load to the load balancer
|
|
|
|
if a reporting stream was opened for this purpose.
|