Building a Billion User Load Balancer [video]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKgJeqF1DHw

by noveltysystems • 11 years ago

79 22 11 years ago

feld2• 11 years ago

Surprised they use tinydns.

feld2• 11 years ago

Why would I get downvoted for that? It's a serious concern. It's missing modern and often important features unless you use unofficial patchsets, and some missing entirely (NSEC3). And then there are all the forks like dbndns from Debian, N-DJBDNS, etc...

scurvy4• 11 years ago

Specifically, what's bad about tinydns? Compared to BIND, it's a veritable Fort Knox of security.

DNSSEC isn't a requirement for most people, and I'd wager a lot of people consider DNSSEC more harmful than beneficial.

Blackthorn• 11 years ago

I can't actually downvote but I imagine you got downvoted because your comment reeked of bikeshedding (regardless of whether you intended it that way or not).

aristus• 11 years ago

You'd be even more surprised what they used before tinydns. :D They wanted speed and robustness, and iterated over quite a few choices including roll-yer-own.

Source: I created a pilot project called "Doppler" that was eventually folded into this system. http://carlos.bueno.org/2011/07/doppler.html

nocarrier3• 11 years ago

It's a simple, fast DNS server that is straightforward to extend if you need to. The genius of Cartographer is that the backend that calculates where to assign traffic is separate from the DNS server frontend. This let FB use a known-good DNS server that got the common DNS protocol stuff right, and gave them more time to focus on all the magic bits in Cartographer's backend.

DNSSEC was never something we were aiming for, so it's fine that TinyDNS doesn't support it out of the box.

scoj• 11 years ago

Quite an interesting talk. I liked the format: "How to get more rps?..."

It's humbling to think of the scale that some other folks deal with. I'm concerned of 2x growth with running a couple thousand sites on a dozen servers.

You can't just hit up SO when you run into a problem at Facebook's scale.

nocarrier3• 11 years ago

We didn't get serious about load balancing and create a team dedicated to it until fall of 2011. At the time, Facebook had 800 million active users per month. We had run out of runway on commercial and open source options, and needed a lot more flexibility with how we allocated and moved traffic around. It took a lot of effort to get to where we are today, but the thing I'll tell you is that these huge systems always start with a prototype running on a dev server. And then you get it to run traffic for your whole team, and then the whole company. Then you try it in a cluster, a datacenter, a region, and all of a sudden you've built a load balancer.

It took Proxygen less than 18 months to go from inception at a hackathon to running all of Facebook's production HTTP traffic. And we could have shaved that by a few months if we had made smarter decisions along the way.

acaloiar• 11 years ago

In 2001 when I was 14, I had no idea what scalability was or how anyone scaled websites. I ran a site with 20k users on a single sever with a single Pentium IV (1.4? Ghz) processor from a garage with no climate control and the fastest cable connection I could afford. At peak hours the processor finally succumbed to the load and I had to buy a second server. I was able to talk a local ISP into co-locating the servers in their rack (Climate control! Fiber!). When I realized that I could load balance with DNS and no load balancing software, I thought I was a genius. The king of scalability.

Needless to say, I was not the king. The engineers at Facebook are king.

zongitsrinzler• 11 years ago

This is gold.

But really, DNS load balancing can be really useful (and is so easy to set up).

stann• 11 years ago

Can anybody summarize the talk for folks like me who for several reasons cannot watch the video?

rroriz• 11 years ago

I'd like to complement this comment and suggest that this practice should be applied to links that may be blocked to a grand part of us, people that are behind a firewall.

cmrx64• 11 years ago

There are also accessibility reasons for not being able to watch a video. Let alone dedicating the time to it.

agumonkey• 11 years ago

Tried proxies ? I don't often use them but some rare times they're helpful https://www.proxfree.com/youtube-proxy.php

https://tx.proxfree.com/permalink.php?url=s54aaHA%2FaGsaD5vH...

Bonus : html player by default

samstave• 11 years ago

Here - I created an SRT Closed Caption file for you:

http://keepsubs.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwat...

scurvy4• 11 years ago

Well, he kinda failed the infamous Facebook interview question of "what happens when you type www.facebook.com and hit enter in a browser?" ;)

scurvy4• 11 years ago

Not trying to be a wet blanket, but there's nothing really groundbreaking in this talk. It's pretty basic stuff that everyone else running L3 networks already does.

I'd be much more interested in a talk that is solely on proxygen.

I'd also like to know their fragmentation rate is between the L4 and L7 LB's. I know what ours is, but I'm sure FB takes a lot more large uploads than we do. Fragmentation is the downside to using IPVS in a L3 network.

seasonedschemer• 11 years ago

Not sure if the talk covered it, but the core Proxygen framework is opensource: https://github.com/facebook/proxygen

nocarrier3• 11 years ago

This stuff seems basic at first glance, but it's not easy to get right, and you're discounting a ton of effort that went into getting feedback loops and demand prediction to work properly in Cartographer for example. Maybe it's easy to slap together L4/L7 LB and throw a DNS server in front of it at smaller scales, but it's a notable accomplishment to do this at Facebook's scale. Nothing out there approaches Facebook's request rates.

There have been detailed talks about Proxygen's architecture at various open houses in Seattle and Menlo Park, and they should have HTTP2 support working well soon. I'd expect there's going to be more detailed blog posts on Proxygen at some point. Or you can check out the source code too.

Fragmentation isn't really an issue for either Shiv or Proxygen. I don't think they will share the rate but it is very low.

scurvy4• 11 years ago

You'll get fragmentation on every segment over 1460 bytes, which would be the majority of datagrams for a large file upload like pictures or movies. Only way to work around this is to run jumbo frames from L4 to L7. You can't magically encapsulate IP in IP at 1460 segments without fragmenting.

patrickshuff• 11 years ago

Hi All! Thanks for the comments here. The video for this same (more recent) talk at SRECon Europe 2015 is up and it is much higher quality. I have iterated on the presentation with feedback I got since giving this in February. Enjoy!

Usenix: https://www.usenix.org/conference/srecon15europe/program/pre...

Direct MP4: http://0b4af6cdc2f0c5998459-c0245c5c937c5dedcca3f1764ecc9b2f...

Building a Billion User Load Balancer [video]

Related Stories