# The Load Balancer



## Accountability (Mar 20, 2011)

Since Carenath wanted discussion about this to go in a different thread but the only thread matching that description was already locked by net-cat for whatever reason, I'll just start this _new_ thread instead.

Ok so my question is: What does FA plan on doing with a load balancer? What is it balancing anyways?

Getting an answer to this question will help prevent jumping to conclusions in the future, and I know several of the admins hate that.


----------



## Xenke (Mar 20, 2011)

Presumably for the servers that are not yet in operation.

Or something.


----------



## net-cat (Mar 20, 2011)

The load balancer is the first in a series of network upgrades that, in addition to some behind the scene improvements, will allow us to provide features like whole-site SSL.


----------



## nrr (Mar 20, 2011)

net-cat said:


> The load balancer is the first in a series of network upgrades that, in addition to some behind the scene improvements, will allow us to provide features like whole-site SSL.


  Forgive me, but I don't follow.  How will a load balancer allow you to provide whole-site SSL?


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 20, 2011)

net-cat said:


> The load balancer is the first in a series of network upgrades that, in addition to some behind the scene improvements, will allow us to provide features like whole-site SSL.


 I've just started taking programming so excuse me if I'm wrong, but that's a transport layer security meant to protect against site vulnerabilities right?


----------



## Eevee (Mar 20, 2011)

net-cat said:


> The load balancer is the first in a series of network upgrades that, in addition to some behind the scene improvements, will allow us to provide features like whole-site SSL.


FA proper's network is very small (one database server, one app+data server) and already has hardware beefier than I'd think it should need.  What are you upgrading?


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 20, 2011)

Eevee said:


> What are you upgrading?


 *sees eevee on*
"Shit just got real"


----------



## FurryJackman (Mar 21, 2011)

net-cat said:


> The load balancer is the first in a series of network upgrades that, in addition to some behind the scene improvements, will allow us to provide features like whole-site SSL.



Whole site SSL is pretty important since some of us might surf to FA on public Wi-Fi.


----------



## Kathunk (Mar 21, 2011)

You're seriously going to offload SSL onto your load balancer? What does this buy you, except another single point of failure? Unless... you've got a standby device that we just haven't heard about?


----------



## Lobar (Mar 21, 2011)

I know what "point of failure" means but in this context I can't help but read it and envision a tick mark being added to several other ticks already present on a big blackboard labeled "FAILURE"


----------



## BRN (Mar 21, 2011)

Lobar said:


> I know what "point of failure" means but in this context I can't help but read it and envision a tick mark being added to several other ticks already present on a big blackboard labeled "FAILURE"


 
I believe it means an extra 'point' in the network at which something can occur to bring down the network.


----------



## Lobar (Mar 21, 2011)

SIX said:


> I believe it means an extra 'point' in the network at which something can occur to bring down the network.


 
I said I knew that already :V


----------



## BRN (Mar 21, 2011)

Lobar said:


> I said I knew that already :V



You expect me to _read_? D:


----------



## Vikar (Mar 21, 2011)

SIX said:


> You expect me to _read_? D:


 
No, Mister Bond, I expect you to die.

I, too, question how a load balancer will provide SSL.


----------



## Duality Jack (Mar 21, 2011)

Is this going to end up being one of those "OMG THE STAFF DOES IT ALL WRONG!!!!" Threads?
If so I'd suggest the people who complain present fully planned out and coded solutions instead of bitching.


----------



## Kathunk (Mar 21, 2011)

The Drunken Ace said:


> Is this going to end up being one of those "OMG THE STAFF DOES IT ALL WRONG!!!!" Threads?
> If so I'd suggest the people who complain present fully planned out and coded solutions instead of bitching.


 
Sure thing! I can even help these guys configure their load balancer! However, what's the point? They won'tgive anyone the code, if they did they wouldn't accept our patches, and they don't listen to our configuration advice. (See also: every other thread where your suggestion of "better be able to do this yourself, lol" comes up. That is not a trumpcard to make criticism go away.)

How about instead of whining that "all we do is whine", you ask the staff to take on the outside help that is being constantly rejected for no clear reason?


----------



## net-cat (Mar 21, 2011)

Further details are considered confidential and are restricted to the Fur Affinity Administrative Staff in keeping with current Fur Affinity policy. We appreciate your continued interest and concern for the well being of the Fur Affinity network.


----------



## LizardKing (Mar 21, 2011)

For the people who can't seem to read



net-cat said:


> The load balancer is the first in *a series* of network upgrades that,* in addition* to some behind the scene improvements, will allow us to provide features *like* whole-site SSL.


 
Nowhere does net-cat imply that the load balancer = SSL. Amount of upgrades > 1, amount of benefits/features > 1. Don't make me draw a Venn diagram >:[


----------



## Kathunk (Mar 21, 2011)

"Considered confidential". What.

What is with this sudden obsession with confidentiality over mundane shit? Get your priorities straight, dudes.


----------



## Kathunk (Mar 21, 2011)

LizardKing said:


> Nowhere does net-cat imply that the load balancer = SSL. Amount of upgrades > 1, amount of benefits/features > 1. Don't make me draw a Venn diagram >:[


 
SSL across the whole site is easily accomplished without the use of a load balancer. If it isn't an implication then why did it get mentioned at all? Plus, what other use does FA have for a load balancer? Nmap says "not much", but maybe they have a "classified confidential top secret" in the works.


----------



## LizardKing (Mar 21, 2011)

Kathunk said:


> SSL across the whole site is easily accomplished without the use of a load balancer. If it isn't an implication then why did it get mentioned at all?


It's been mentioned in the past in unrelated issues, so maybe it was simply an easy example to throw out. Does it matter?


Kathunk said:


> Plus, what other use does FA have for a load balancer? Nmap says "not much", but maybe they have a "classified confidential top secret" in the works.


That would involve assumptions and conjecture on things I know nothing about so I wont go there.


----------



## Xenke (Mar 21, 2011)

What's this, Kathunk is yet another dissenter who doesn't actually know what they're talking about?

Who'd-a-thunk. :roll:


----------



## Kathunk (Mar 21, 2011)

Xenke said:


> What's this, Kathunk is yet another dissenter who doesn't actually know what they're talking about?


Let's just say I'm intimately familiar with load balancers in theory and in practice.


----------



## nrr (Mar 21, 2011)

net-cat said:


> Further details are considered confidential and are restricted to the Fur Affinity Administrative Staff in keeping with current Fur Affinity policy. We appreciate your continued interest and concern for the well being of the Fur Affinity network.


 
Better said:



> Unfortunately, these details are currently under internal review as part of a determination of viability of other possible architectural designs.  When we have evaluated everything and have chosen an implementation, we will inform you accordingly.


----------



## Xenke (Mar 21, 2011)

nrr said:


> Better said:


 
Only the first statement doesn't imply ever informing anyone about anything more than what has already been said.


----------



## Zercompf-Sanika (Mar 21, 2011)

I just adore threads like these.


----------



## Kathunk (Mar 21, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Only the first statement doesn't imply ever informing anyone about anything more than what has already been said.


Well, duh!
Confidential: Details of "improvements" that nobody seems willing to come out and explain (because... they're confidential ??????)
Not Confidential: User notes, information, and sometimes passwords.
Makes perfect sense to me!


----------



## nrr (Mar 21, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Only the first statement doesn't imply ever informing anyone about anything more than what has already been said.


 
From a customer service perspective, which would you rather read?

If the informative follow-up to my statement were to consist solely of, "We have installed a new load balancer, and we have begun enforcing SSL everywhere at furaffinity.net," would you be disappointed?


----------



## BRN (Mar 21, 2011)

nrr said:


> From a customer service perspective, which would you rather read?
> 
> If the informative follow-up to my statement were to consist solely of, "We have installed a new load balancer, and we have begun enforcing SSL everywhere at furaffinity.net," would you be disappointed?


 
You've gone from trying to paraphrase things that weren't there, to paraphrasing more things that aren't there.


----------



## net-cat (Mar 21, 2011)

nrr said:


> Better said:
> 
> 
> 
> > Unfortunately, these details are currently under internal review as part of a determination of viability of other possible architectural designs.  When we have evaluated everything and have chosen an implementation, we will inform you accordingly.


Yes, that's a much better way if putting it. I should get you to write my PR posts in the future, because I suck at them.


----------



## Xenke (Mar 21, 2011)

Kathunk said:


> Well, duh!
> Confidential: Details of "improvements" that nobody seems willing to come out and explain (because... they're confidential ??????)
> Not Confidential: User notes, information, and sometimes passwords.
> Makes perfect sense to me!


 
Oh man, you're worse than I thought.


----------



## CerbrusNL (Mar 21, 2011)

Kathunk said:


> SSL across the whole site is easily accomplished without the use of a load balancer. If it isn't an implication then why did it get mentioned at all? Plus, what other use does FA have for a load balancer? Nmap says "not much", but maybe they have a "classified confidential top secret" in the works.





net-cat said:


> The load balancer is the first in *a series of  network upgrades that*, in addition to some behind the scene  improvements, *will allow us to provide features like whole-site  SSL*.


It's not specifically the load balancer that's allowing for whole-site SSL, nor does net-cat day the load balancer is a key part in it.

He just said it's the first in a series of upgrades.
That series of upgrades (Not specifically the balancer) will enable the SSL stuff.


----------



## Kathunk (Mar 21, 2011)

CerbrusNL said:


> It's not specifically the load balancer that's allowing for whole-site SSL, nor does net-cat day the load balancer is a key part in it.
> 
> He just said it's the first in a series of upgrades.
> That series of upgrades (Not specifically the balancer) will enable the SSL stuff.


 
So basically, some buzzwords were thrown together without any regard for making a coherent statement? Again, if the load balancer didn't have anything to do with SSL, then why was it mentioned at all? Misdirection? Again: The question that the OP had, that a few other people up-thread had, and that I have: _what are you using the load balancer for_? It isn't for SSL offloading and it can't really be for load-balancing traffic, unless you made significant changes in your previous maintenance window. The most you've said is it's for "enabling future features"? _What features?_


----------



## Xenke (Mar 21, 2011)

Kathunk said:


> _What features?_


 
Features their not willing to discuss because if they don't implement them within a week, or if they decide to scrap them, people like you have a hissy fit and yell "YOU PROMISED" and then cows are had.


----------



## Heimdal (Mar 21, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Features their not willing to discuss because if they don't implement them within a week, or if they decide to scrap them, people like you have a hissy fit and yell "YOU PROMISED" and then cows are had.


 
To be fair, roundabout bullshit takes longer to write than the truth. Even if it doesn't in this case, there was a good entire week beforehand to write it in as well.

Was anything even done? FA went down for a bunch of vague things that have no clear relation to anything. Better question: how much did it cost? What aspects of the site have been noticeably improved?


----------



## Kathunk (Mar 21, 2011)

guys nobody's asked the REALLY important question here... What tired internet meme are they going to butcher to _name_ the thing? They've got ROUTEZILLA and SWITCHTHUHLU and TROGDOR, are they going to have LOADBALANCETRON?


----------



## Eevee (Mar 21, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Features their not willing to discuss because if they don't implement them within a week, or if they decide to scrap them, people like you have a hissy fit and yell "YOU PROMISED" and then cows are had.


No, this isn't how it works.

Nerds are plenty familiar with failed projects.  The problem is that we want to be _actually_ informed; we don't want to be spoonfed something technically correct but minimally useful that's designed to make as many people complacent as possible.  FA likes to say "we're working on X", then clam up until either they finish it or everyone forgets about it.  That is not information; that is marketing.  Saying how far you've gotten but that X Y Z hurdles are getting in the way is perfectly fine.

We are mad that we don't get information.  Providing even less is not going to solve this problem.  Stop being a PR machine and just be honest; that's what I've been rooting for all along.


----------



## Bobskunk (Mar 21, 2011)

Actually I am pretty curious as to how this load balancer will be useful.  Even if it isn't helpful now, since 100% of site frontend requests still goes to trogdor, 100% of database stuff still goes to novastorm, 100% of ad traffic still goes to ox (based on what little information is out there, if I'm wrong I sincerely welcome any knowledgeable staff to correct me so I _can_ have all the facts) what is the plan for making it helpful in the future?

Are you going to put some of those idle servers to work as trogduo and trogtrio (since you guys love wacky cultural references like stongbad and pokemen, I just saved everyone the trouble of naming the other redundant data/web servers) so that the load for site traffic is split, allowing redundancy and preventing one server from getting overloaded with requests?  If so, why isn't this publicly stated somewhere on a roadmap?  If not, then what is the end goal with the load balancer, and what is the ultimate fate of the mothballed, 64GB-RAM-having servers?

EDIT: psst, xenke, this post is pretty much in agreement with all the people you're griping about in the thread.  their deal: load balancer has no effect on current network, as understood by a cobbling together of what little public information exists, and the fact that little public information exists.  so, I dunno why you're "thising" it


----------



## Accountability (Mar 21, 2011)

net-cat said:


> Further details are considered confidential and are restricted to the Fur Affinity Administrative Staff in keeping with current Fur Affinity policy.



Okay, then I don't want to hear any whining when people jump to conclusions.

In fact, I'm going to do that right now; The load balancer was installed for shiny factor. Big websites use them, so FA thinks if they use one they can be cool too. Nobody there knows how to use it or the firewall, and that's why the outage was so long yesterday, because the sysadmins were wildly flailing around the configurations of both these devices because they haven't a clue what they're doing.

This is 100% fact.


----------



## nrr (Mar 21, 2011)

net-cat said:


> Yes, that's a much better way if putting it. I should get you to write my PR posts in the future, because I suck at them.


 
I honestly cannot tell if this is sarcasm.


----------



## nrr (Mar 21, 2011)

SIX said:


> You've gone from trying to paraphrase things that weren't there, to paraphrasing more things that aren't there.


 
Team,

It appears that the point I was trying to make has failed to elicit the intended reactions.  Shall I elaborate further, or do you wish to ask me questions instead?  Please advise.

Thanks.


----------



## kayfox (Mar 21, 2011)

I hate to say it, but you cant have all your technical details be confidential and not talk about them and not have people jumping to conclusions and asking questions derived from random guessing people have made.  Its kinda a one or the other sorta thing, either you release the information and people dont make assumptions, or you keep it all secret and speculation runs wild.  Sitting here and saying "shut up, your all wrong" wont really help, "shut up, your all wrong, Im banning you now" wont help either, and might even start leading to people leaving.  And well, without users, whats the point of running a site like FA?


----------

