Hi Peter,
yes, it's true. I will try to explain our problem better.
We provide a mobile solution for newspaper and media groups. With this
kind of partners, it is easy to have a peak of traffic. We prefer to
give stale content (1 or 2 minutes stale content, not more) instead of
block the request for some seconds (the time that our tomcat back-end
could expend to crawl our customers desktop site and generate the new
content). As I tried to explain in my first e-mail, the
proxy_cache_background_update
<http://nginx.org/en/docs/http/ngx_http_proxy_module.html#proxy_cache_background_update>
works ok while the number of servers is fix and the LB in front of them
does a URI load balancer.
The major problem appears when the servers has to scale up and scale
down. Imagine that the URL1 is cache by server 1. All the request for
URL1 are redirected to Server1 by the LB. Suddenly, the traffic raise up
and a new server is added. The LB will remap the request in order to
send some URLs to server 2. The URL1 is one of this group of URL that
goes to server 2. Some hours later, the traffic goes down and the server
2 is removed. In this situation, the new request that arrive to Server 1
asking for URL1 will receive the version of some hours before (not some
minutes). This is what we are trying to avoid.
Many thanks for all your feedback and suggestions,
Joan
Joan Tomàs-Buliart
On 08/07/17 15:30, Peter Booth wrote:
> Perhaps it would help if, rather than focus on the specific solution
> that you are wanting, you instead explained your specific problem and
> business context?
>
> What is driving your architecture? Is it about protecting a backend
> that doesn't scale or more about reducing latencies?
>
> How many different requests are there that might be cached? What are
> the backend calls doing? How do cached objects expire? How long does a
> call to the backend take?
> Why is it OK to return a stale version of X to the first client but
> not OK to return a stale version to a second requester?
>
> Imagine a scenario where two identical requests arrive from different
> clients and hit different web servers. Is it OK for both requests to
> be satisfied with a stale resource?
>
> It's very easy for us to make incorrect assumptions about all of these
> questions because of our own experiences.
>
> Peter
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 8, 2017, at 9:00 AM, Joan Tomàs i Buliart
> <joan.tomas@marfeel.com <mailto:joan.tomas@marfeel.com>> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Owen!
>>
>> We considered all the options on these 2 documents but, on our
>> environment in which is important to use stale-while-revalidate, all
>> of them have, at least, one of these drawbacks: or it adds a layer in
>> the fast path to the content or it can't guarantee that one request
>> on a stale content will force the invalidation off all the copies of
>> this object.
>>
>> That is the reason for which we are looking for a "background"
>> alternative to update the content.
>>
>> Many thanks in any case,
>>
>> Joan
>>
>> On 07/07/17 16:04, Owen Garrett wrote:
>>> There are a couple of options described here that you could consider
>>> if you want to share your cache between NGINX instances:
>>>
>>> https://www.nginx.com/blog/shared-caches-nginx-plus-cache-clusters-part-1/ describes
>>> a sharded cache approach, where you load-balance by URI across the
>>> NGINX cache servers. You can combine your front-end load balancers
>>> and back-end caches onto one tier to reduce your footprint if you wish
>>>
>>> https://www.nginx.com/blog/shared-caches-nginx-plus-cache-clusters-part-2/ describes
>>> an alternative HA (shared) approach that replicates the cache so
>>> that there’s no increased load on the origin server if one cache
>>> server fails.
>>>
>>> It’s not possible to share a cache across instances by using a
>>> shared filesystem (e.g. nfs).
>>>
>>> ---
>>> owen@nginx.com <mailto:owen@nginx.com>
>>> Skype: owen.garrett
>>> Cell: +44 7764 344779
>>>
>>>> On 7 Jul 2017, at 14:39, Peter Booth <peter_booth@me.com
>>>> <mailto:peter_booth@me.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You could do that but it would be bad. Nginx' great performance is
>>>> based on serving files from a local Fisk and the behavior of a
>>>> Linux page cache. If you serve from a shared (nfs) filsystem then
>>>> every request is slower. You shouldn't slow down the common case
>>>> just to increase cache hit rate.
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 7, 2017, at 9:24 AM, Frank Dias <frank.dias@prodea.com
>>>> <mailto:frank.dias@prodea.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Have you thought about using a shared file system for the cache.
>>>>> This way all the nginx 's are looking at the same cached content.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 7, 2017 5:30 AM, Joan Tomàs i Buliart
>>>>> <joan.tomas@marfeel.com <mailto:joan.tomas@marfeel.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Lucas
>>>>>
>>>>> On 07/07/17 12:12, Lucas Rolff wrote:
>>>>> > Instead of doing round robin load balancing why not do a URI
>>>>> based
>>>>> > load balancing? Then you ensure your cached file is only
>>>>> present on a
>>>>> > single machine behind the load balancer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, we considered this option but it forces us to deploy and
>>>>> maintain
>>>>> another layer (LB+NG+AppServer). All cloud providers have
>>>>> round robin
>>>>> load balancers out-of-the-box but no one provides URI based load
>>>>> balancer. Moreover, in our scenario, our webservers layer is
>>>>> quite
>>>>> dynamic due to scaling up/down.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Joan
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> nginx mailing list
>>>>> nginx@nginx.org <mailto:nginx@nginx.org>
>>>>> http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This message is confidential to Prodea unless otherwise indicated
>>>>> or apparent from its nature. This message is directed to the
>>>>> intended recipient only, who may be readily determined by the
>>>>> sender of this message and its contents. If the reader of this
>>>>> message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent
>>>>> responsible for delivering this message to the intended
>>>>> recipient:(a)any dissemination or copying of this message is
>>>>> strictly prohibited; and(b)immediately notify the sender by return
>>>>> message and destroy any copies of this message in any
>>>>> form(electronic, paper or otherwise) that you have.The delivery of
>>>>> this message and its information is neither intended to be nor
>>>>> constitutes a disclosure or waiver of any trade secrets,
>>>>> intellectual property, attorney work product, or attorney-client
>>>>> communications. The authority of the individual sending this
>>>>> message to legally bind Prodea is neither apparent nor implied,and
>>>>> must be independently verified.
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> nginx mailing list
>>>>> nginx@nginx.org <mailto:nginx@nginx.org>
>>>>> http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> nginx mailing list
>>>> nginx@nginx.org <mailto:nginx@nginx.org>
>>>> http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nginx mailing list
>>> nginx@nginx.org
>>> http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nginx mailing list
>> nginx@nginx.org <mailto:nginx@nginx.org>
>> http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nginx mailing list
> nginx@nginx.org
> http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx
_______________________________________________
nginx mailing list
nginx@nginx.org
http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx
