You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Been exploring the envoy docs a little bit and haven't seen anything on this topic so thought I would ask. If I have a load balancer set up that uses the ring-hash algorithm, how does re-balancing work, with regards to upstreams coming up or down?
Specifically, if I have upstream A and upstream B, with persistent connections (say, websockets) open to both, and A goes down, will all traffic be routed to B? What happens when A comes back up? Will the LB kill any connections that are open to B that are meant to go to A? Or will it keep those connections open and only new connections will go to A?
Basically, we want to guarantee that for a specific header value, all clients are always connected to the same upstream, regardless of what the upstream actually is.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
It's the former. No existing requests are effected during rehashing. For long lives request reams (websocket/gRPC) you have a split brain situation. It's possible we could kill all connections on rehash, but that would be a feature request and need a bunch of thinking.
Been exploring the envoy docs a little bit and haven't seen anything on this topic so thought I would ask. If I have a load balancer set up that uses the ring-hash algorithm, how does re-balancing work, with regards to upstreams coming up or down?
Specifically, if I have upstream A and upstream B, with persistent connections (say, websockets) open to both, and A goes down, will all traffic be routed to B? What happens when A comes back up? Will the LB kill any connections that are open to B that are meant to go to A? Or will it keep those connections open and only new connections will go to A?
Basically, we want to guarantee that for a specific header value, all clients are always connected to the same upstream, regardless of what the upstream actually is.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: