mirror of
				https://git.haproxy.org/git/haproxy.git/
				synced 2025-10-31 08:30:59 +01:00 
			
		
		
		
	Released version 2.5-dev0 with the following main changes :
    - MINOR: version: it's development again
		
	
			
		
			
				
	
	
		
			1691 lines
		
	
	
		
			88 KiB
		
	
	
	
		
			Plaintext
		
	
	
	
	
	
			
		
		
	
	
			1691 lines
		
	
	
		
			88 KiB
		
	
	
	
		
			Plaintext
		
	
	
	
	
	
|                              -----------------------
 | |
|                               HAProxy Starter Guide
 | |
|                              -----------------------
 | |
|                                    version 2.5
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
| 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 is also provided, the product's lifecycle
 | |
| is explained, and comparisons with partially overlapping products are provided.
 | |
| 
 | |
| This document doesn't provide any configuration help or hints, 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.       Formatted 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
 | |
| 
 | |
| 5. Contacts
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
| 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, and 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.
 | |
| 
 | |
|   - 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 is 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 a 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 (e.g. EtherChannel, Bonding)
 | |
|   - IP address load balancing (e.g. ECMP, DNS round-robin)
 | |
|   - 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
 | |
|     choosing what network link to send a packet to;
 | |
| 
 | |
|   - at the network level : this is called network load balancing, and it
 | |
|     consists in choosing 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. In each case it is important to keep in mind that load balancing
 | |
| consists in diverting the traffic from its natural flow and that doing so always
 | |
| requires a minimum of care to maintain the required level of consistency between
 | |
| all routing decisions.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 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 addresses
 | |
| 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 (e.g. 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 evict the components
 | |
| which return inappropriate responses. However this requires to sacrifice 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 re-encrypt 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 as "HAProxy" to designate the product, and as "haproxy" to
 | |
| designate the executable program, software package or a process. However, both
 | |
| are commonly used for both purposes, and are pronounced H-A-Proxy. Very early,
 | |
| "haproxy" 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 isn't
 | |
| ------------------------------
 | |
| 
 | |
| 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; IPv4, IPv6 and even UNIX sockets are supported on
 | |
|     either side, so this can provide an easy way to translate addresses between
 | |
|     different families.
 | |
| 
 | |
|   - 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. It may use any combination of HTTP/1.x
 | |
|     or HTTP/2 on any side and will even automatically detect the protocol
 | |
|     spoken on each side when ALPN is used over TLS.
 | |
| 
 | |
|   - 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 lot of settings can be applied per name
 | |
|     (SNI), and may be updated at runtime without restarting. Such setups are
 | |
|     extremely scalable and deployments involving tens to hundreds of thousands
 | |
|     of certificates were reported.
 | |
| 
 | |
|   - 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 (e.g. 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 (e.g. 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.
 | |
| 
 | |
|   - a caching proxy : it may cache responses in RAM so that subsequent requests
 | |
|     for the same object avoid the cost of another network transfer from the
 | |
|     server as long as the object remains present and valid. It will however not
 | |
|     store objects to any persistent storage. Please note that this caching
 | |
|     feature is designed to be maintenance free and focuses solely on saving
 | |
|     haproxy's precious resources and not on save the server's resources. Caches
 | |
|     designed to optimize servers require much more tuning and flexibility. If
 | |
|     you instead need such an advanced cache, please use Varnish Cache, which
 | |
|     integrates perfectly with haproxy, especially when SSL/TLS is needed on any
 | |
|     side.
 | |
| 
 | |
|   - a FastCGI gateway : FastCGI can be seen as a different representation of
 | |
|     HTTP, and as such, HAProxy can directly load-balance a farm comprising any
 | |
|     combination of FastCGI application servers without requiring to insert
 | |
|     another level of gateway between them. This results in resource savings and
 | |
|     a reduction of maintenance costs.
 | |
| 
 | |
| HAProxy is not :
 | |
| 
 | |
|   - an explicit HTTP proxy, i.e. 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 data scrubber : it will not modify the body of requests nor responses.
 | |
| 
 | |
|   - a static 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 static web
 | |
|     server (dynamic servers are supported through FastCGI however). There are
 | |
|     excellent open-source software for this such as Apache or Nginx, and
 | |
|     HAProxy can be easily installed in front of them to provide load balancing,
 | |
|     high availability and acceleration.
 | |
| 
 | |
|   - 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 an event-driven, non-blocking engine combining a very fast I/O layer
 | |
| with a priority-based, multi-threaded 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. It focuses on optimizing the CPU
 | |
| cache's efficiency by sticking connections to the same CPU as long as possible.
 | |
| As such it implements a layered model offering bypass mechanisms at each level
 | |
| ensuring data doesn't reach higher levels unless 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. A single
 | |
| core, single CPU setup is far more than enough for more than 99% users, and as
 | |
| such, users of containers and virtual machines are encouraged to use the
 | |
| absolute smallest images they can get to save on operational costs and simplify
 | |
| troubleshooting. However the machine HAProxy runs on must never ever swap, and
 | |
| its CPU must not be artificially throttled (sub-CPU allocation in hypervisors)
 | |
| nor be shared with compute-intensive processes which would induce a very high
 | |
| context-switch latency.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Threading allows to exploit all available processing capacity by using one
 | |
| thread per CPU core. This is mostly useful for SSL or when data forwarding
 | |
| rates above 40 Gbps are needed. In such cases it is critically important to
 | |
| avoid communications between multiple physical CPUs, which can cause strong
 | |
| bottlenecks in the network stack and in HAProxy itself. While counter-intuitive
 | |
| to some, the first thing to do when facing some performance issues is often to
 | |
| reduce the number of CPUs HAProxy runs on.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 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. Logs may also be sent to stdout/stderr, which can be
 | |
| useful inside containers. 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 independent 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 addresses and/or ports, even port ranges;
 | |
| 
 | |
|   - Transparent accept : intercept traffic targeting 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 (e.g. SACK), congestion control, and reduce RTT impacts;
 | |
| 
 | |
|   - Support different protocol families on both sides (e.g. 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 know 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.
 | |
| 
 | |
|   - support for stateless session resumption (RFC 5077 TLS Ticket extension).
 | |
|     TLS tickets can be updated from CLI which provides them means to implement
 | |
|     Perfect Forward Secrecy by frequently rotating the tickets.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
| 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 no one
 | |
|     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 independently 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
 | |
|     (e.g. the HTTP response received at the moment the failure was detected). An
 | |
|     e-mail can also be sent to a configurable address upon such a change ;
 | |
| 
 | |
|   - 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 (e.g. 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 (e.g. postpone backups to keep more CPU available);
 | |
| 
 | |
|   - Servers can use health checks to report more detailed state than just on/off
 | |
|     (e.g. 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 evicted 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 (e.g. 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 well 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 10 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, HTTP 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 conditioned 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 preferred 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, positional 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 even 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
 | |
| anonymous ACLs inline is easier as it requires less references out of the scope
 | |
| being analyzed.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
| 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 keys 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 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 behavior, it is
 | |
| mostly used to fight against service abuse and more generally DDoS as it allows
 | |
| to build complex models to detect certain bad behaviors at a high processing
 | |
| speed.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
| 3.3.12. Basic features : Formatted 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 Formatted 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, to build
 | |
| response data or even response templates, 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 targeted attacks. While it's theoretically 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
 | |
| redirects, 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 formatted strings
 | |
|     so that it is possible to pass information there (e.g. client side TLS
 | |
|     algorithm and cipher);
 | |
| 
 | |
|   - HTTP redirects can use any 3xx code to a relative, absolute, or completely
 | |
|     dynamic (formatted 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;
 | |
| 
 | |
|   - a powerful "return" directive allows to customize every part of a response
 | |
|     like status, headers, body using dynamic contents or even template files.
 | |
| 
 | |
|   - 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 takes
 | |
| 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 standard-compliant but harmless requests or responses and even to
 | |
| fix them. This allows bogus applications to be accessible while a fix is being
 | |
| developed. 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, or 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 wrongly accused of causing the problems it reveals, and
 | |
| second because it is placed at a critical point in an infrastructure where all
 | |
| normal and abnormal activity needs to be analyzed 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 (e.g. for NAT
 | |
| correlation). By default, TCP and HTTP logs are quite detailed and 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 of cumulative requests or number of
 | |
| different URLs visited by a 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 behavior happen for a small part of the traffic
 | |
| (e.g. 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 independent 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. But
 | |
| it is also possible to sned them to stdout/stderr or any file descriptor, as
 | |
| well as to a ring buffer that a client can subscribe to in order to retrieve
 | |
| them.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
| 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.
 | |
| 
 | |
| A Prometheus exporter is also provided so that the statistics can be consumed
 | |
| in a different format depending on the deployment.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
| 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 importance instead of migrating all of them at once. Configuration
 | |
| files are easily versioned. 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 (e.g. 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).
 | |
| Updating certificates and their configuration on the fly is permitted, as well
 | |
| as enabling and consulting traces of every processing step of the traffic.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 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 developed 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 "piggy-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
 | |
| behavior is detected on a system, it must be fixed, regardless of the fact that
 | |
| HAProxy protects itself against it.
 | |
| 
 | |
| On Linux, a new starting process may communicate with the previous one to reuse
 | |
| its listening file descriptors so that the listening sockets are never
 | |
| interrupted during the process's replacement.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
| 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.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
| 3.4.4. Advanced features: Tracing
 | |
| ---------------------------------
 | |
| 
 | |
| At any moment an administrator may connect over the CLI and enable tracing in
 | |
| various internal subsystems. Various levels of details are provided by default
 | |
| so that in practice anything between one line per request to 500 lines per
 | |
| request can be retrieved. Filters as well as an automatic capture on/off/pause
 | |
| mechanism are available so that it really is possible to wait for a certain
 | |
| event and watch it in detail. This is extremely convenient to diagnose protocol
 | |
| violations from faulty servers and clients, or denial of service attacks.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
| 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 with 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 processes spread over multiple CPUs,
 | |
| 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 buses 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 equipped 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 renegotiated 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 result 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
 | |
| renegotiation, 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 cores 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 100-1000 application servers depending on the technology in use.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
| 3.6. How to get HAProxy
 | |
| -----------------------
 | |
| 
 | |
| HAProxy is an open source 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 developed.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 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 numbered with two digits delimited with a dot, such as "1.6".
 | |
| Since 1.9, branches with an odd second digit are mostly focused on sensitive
 | |
| technical updates and more aimed at advanced users because they are likely to
 | |
| trigger more bugs than the other ones. They are maintained for about a year
 | |
| only and must not be deployed where they cannot be rolled back in emergency. 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 aforementioned 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;
 | |
| 
 | |
|   - GitHub : https://github.com/haproxy/haproxy/ : this is the mirror for the
 | |
|     development branch only, which provides integration with the issue tracker,
 | |
|     continuous integration and code coverage tools. This is exclusively for
 | |
|     contributors;
 | |
| 
 | |
|   - 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 open source 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 :
 | |
| 
 | |
|       HAProxy version 2.4-dev18-a5357c-137 2021/05/09 - https://haproxy.org/
 | |
| 
 | |
|     A stable version will appear like this, as well as unmodified stable
 | |
|     versions provided by operating system vendors :
 | |
| 
 | |
|       HAProxy 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 :
 | |
| 
 | |
|       HAProxy 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>) :
 | |
| 
 | |
|       HAProxy version 1.5.0-994126-357 2015/07/02
 | |
| 
 | |
|     Please note that historically versions prior to 2.4 used to report the
 | |
|     process name with a hyphen between "HA" and "Proxy", including those above
 | |
|     which were adjusted to show the correct format only, so better ignore this
 | |
|     word or use a relaxed match in scripts. Additionally, modern versions add
 | |
|     a URL linking to the project's home.
 | |
| 
 | |
|     Finally, versions 2.1 and above will include a "Status" line indicating
 | |
|     whether the version is safe for production or not, and if so, till when, as
 | |
|     well as a link to the list of known bugs affecting this version.
 | |
| 
 | |
|   - 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 mentioned 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. It 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, some being heavier than others. 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 a wide number of types of DoS attacks.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
| 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 (e.g. 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 decongesting
 | |
| 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. In addition, caching of very small dumb objects for a short
 | |
| duration on HAProxy can sometimes save network round trips and reduce the CPU
 | |
| load on both the HAProxy and the Varnish nodes. This is only possible is no
 | |
| processing is done on these objects on Varnish (this is often referred to as
 | |
| the notion of "favicon cache", by which a sizeable percentage of useless
 | |
| downstream requests can sometimes be avoided). However do not enable HAProxy
 | |
| caching for a long time (more than a few seconds) in front of any other cache,
 | |
| that would significantly complicate troubleshooting without providing really
 | |
| significant savings.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
| 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
 | |
| reached.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 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.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
| 5. Contacts
 | |
| -----------
 | |
| 
 | |
| If you want to contact the developers or any community member about anything,
 | |
| the best way to do it usually is via the mailing list by sending your message
 | |
| to haproxy@formilux.org. Please note that this list is public and its archives
 | |
| are public as well so you should avoid disclosing sensitive information. A
 | |
| thousand of users of various experience levels are present there and even the
 | |
| most complex questions usually find an optimal response relatively quickly.
 | |
| Suggestions are welcome too. For users having difficulties with e-mail, a
 | |
| Discourse platform is available at http://discourse.haproxy.org/ . However
 | |
| please keep in mind that there are less people reading questions there and that
 | |
| most are handled by a really tiny team. In any case, please be patient and
 | |
| respectful with those who devote their spare time helping others.
 | |
| 
 | |
| I you believe you've found a bug but are not sure, it's best reported on the
 | |
| mailing list. If you're quite convinced you've found a bug, that your version
 | |
| is up-to-date in its branch, and you already have a GitHub account, feel free
 | |
| to go directly to https://github.com/haproxy/haproxy/ and file an issue with
 | |
| all possibly available details. Again, this is public so be careful not to post
 | |
| information you might later regret. Since the issue tracker presents itself as
 | |
| a very long thread, please avoid pasting very long dumps (a few hundreds lines
 | |
| or more) and attach them instead.
 | |
| 
 | |
| If you've found what you're absolutely certain can be considered a critical
 | |
| security issue that would put many users in serious trouble if discussed in a
 | |
| public place, then you can send it with the reproducer to security@haproxy.org.
 | |
| A small team of trusted developers will receive it and will be able to propose
 | |
| a fix. We usually don't use embargoes and once a fix is available it gets
 | |
| merged. In some rare circumstances it can happen that a release is coordinated
 | |
| with software vendors. Please note that this process usually messes up with
 | |
| eveyone's work, and that rushed up releases can sometimes introduce new bugs,
 | |
| so it's best avoided unless strictly necessary; as such, there is often little
 | |
| consideration for reports that needlessly cause such extra burden, and the best
 | |
| way to see your work credited usually is to provide a working fix, which will
 | |
| appear in changelogs.
 |