I'm assuming we would have the standard openssl version with Intel TLS offload though, right? RHEL ships their FIPS compliant version that strips all the acceleration out. The cpu instruction sets should be passed through from the host, so hopefully that will make a massive difference to decryption speeds and cpu load.
Simon Weller/615-312-6068 -----Original Message----- From: Pierre-Luc Dion [pd...@cloudops.com] Received: Wednesday, 08 Nov 2017, 9:00AM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org [dev@cloudstack.apache.org]; Khosrow Moossavi [kmooss...@cloudops.com]; Will Stevens [wstev...@cloudops.com] CC: users [us...@cloudstack.apache.org] Subject: Re: HTTPS LB and x-forwarded-for Same challenge here too! Let's look at improving Load-balancing offering from cloudstack, I guest we should do a feature spec draft soon.., from my perspective, doing SSL offload on the VR could be problematic if the VR spec if too small, and the default spec of the VR being 1vcpu@256MB, considering it can be the router of a VPC, doing VPN termination, adding HTTPS is a bit ish... What would be your thought about this ? I'd be curious to have a LB offering in ACS where it would deploy a redundant traefik[1] beside the VR for doing http and https Load-balancing. I think it would also be useful if the API of that traefik instance would be available from within the VPC or LBnetwork so is API would be accessible to other apps orchestration tools such as kubernetes or rancher. traefik or not, here is what I think is needed by cloudstack in the LB improvement: - support http, https (X-Forwarded-For) - basic persistence tuning (API already exist) - better backend monitoring, currently only a tcp connect validate if the webserver is up. - ssl offload - metric collection, more stats, maybe just export the tool status page to the private network. - Container world support, right now if you have Rancher or kubernetes cluster, you need to deploy your own LB solution behing mostlikely a static nat., If cloudstack would deploy a traefik instance, Kub or Rancher could reuse this instance and managed it to properly do LB between containers. What would be your prefered LB tool: haproxy, traefik or nginx? CloudStack already have to code to handle SSL certs per projects and accounts if not mistaking because that code was added to support NetScaler as Load-balancer in the past. so one less thing to think about :-) [1] https://traefik.io/ PL, On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 7:10 AM, Nux! <n...@li.nux.ro> wrote: > Thanks Andrija, > > LB outside of the VR sounds like a good idea. An appliance based on, say > cloud-init + ansible and so on could do the trick; alas it'd need to be > outside ACS. > I guess as users we could maybe come up with a spec for an improvement, at > least we'd have something the devs could look at whenever it is possible. > > Regards, > Lucian > > -- > Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! > > Nux! > www.nux.ro > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Andrija Panic" <andrija.pa...@gmail.com> > > To: "dev" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> > > Cc: "users" <us...@cloudstack.apache.org> > > Sent: Thursday, 2 November, 2017 23:21:37 > > Subject: Re: HTTPS LB and x-forwarded-for > > > We used to make some special stuff for one of the clients, where all LB > > configuration work is done from outside of the ACS, i.e. python script to > > feed/configure VR - install latest haproxy 1.5.x for transparent proxy, > > since client insisted on SSL termination done on backend web SSL > servers.... > > Not good idea, that is all I can say (custom configuration thing) - but > the > > LB setup is actually good - transparent mode haproxy, works on TCP level, > > so you can see "real client IP" on the backend servers (which must use VR > > as the default gtw, as per default, so the whole setup works properly). > > > > I'm still looking forward to see some special support of LB inside VR via > > ACS - proper LB setup inside VR via GUI/API - i.e. to enable LB > > provisioning SCRIPT (bash, or whatever), where all needed > > install+configure can be done from client side - otherwise covering all > > user cases, with proper HTTP checks and similar....is impossible to do > > IMHO. > > > > Some other clients, actually have internal FW appliance (i.e. multihomed > > VM, acting as gtw for all VMs in all networks), and haproxy instaled on > > this device (with NAT configured from VR to this internal FW/VM, so > remote > > IP can be seen properly) - this setup is fully under customer control, > and > > can provide any kind of special haproxy config... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 31 October 2017 at 19:54, Nux! <n...@li.nux.ro> wrote: > > > >> Hello, > >> > >> Of the people running an LB (VR) with https backends, how do you deal > with > >> the lack of x-forwarded-for since for port 443 there's just simple TCP > >> balancing? > >> > >> Has anyone thought of terminating SSL in the VR instead? Ideas? > >> > >> Cheers > >> > >> -- > >> Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! > >> > >> Nux! > >> www.nux.ro > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Andrija Panić >
