5 ms·
The design of the proposed networks are not really optimal for provinding low latency. You would do much better by dropping the firewalls, having the front end
by myrandomcomment 9y ago
The design of the proposed networks are not really optimal for provinding low latency. You would do much better by dropping the firewalls, having the front end game severs on then net with the correct setup security wise (only running the services needed to answer for the game). On the game serves have a back end network for storage and DB (2 networks on shared NIC with VLANs or even 2 different NICs). It really depends on the load and throughtput requirements. This is an answer given the design they proposed. L2 and bae metal servers are not the right answer when you are designing from scratch in 2017.
Ideally you do an L3 CLOS Pod (leaf/spine) behind a SLB that directs traffic to containers on the servers running the game system. Do every container as a /32s (BGP fabric on the clos pulled down to the server - running routing on the server) and run the internal DB / app / storage on a diffent set of /32s. Towards the external router do not announce the internal DB / app / storage networks and then the world can not get to them. Redundancy is a feature of the Clos and BGP + containers. Scaling is simple if your application is built to scale with the addition of service containers.
Also 10g is cheap and the latency is much lower then 1g. Heck I know people building the 2nd design I talked about above running 50g to the servers and 6x100g from the leaf to the spines. The cost on the switchs (Broadcom Tomahawk ASIC in kit from Arista, Cisco, Juniper, whitebox) is really cheap.
- maxmcd 9y agoIt is made clear a few times in the article that this is a "slower" setup. > With such slower-but-more-secure deployments, our uplink Internet port goes to our firewall; nothing else is connected directly to the Internet – so the firewall can control all the traffic.
- whatupmd 9y agoIf you are learning what a VLAN is, you should be using a firewall.
- lazylizard 9y agoactually whats wrong with bare metal servers?
- myrandomcomment 9y agoNothing, if you have a need for a single big app that can consume the full system. Makes redundancy more complex as you cannot move the app if there is a failure. Requires clustering, SLB type design.
- lazylizard 9y agoi'm thinking a cluster of bare metal servers is rather simpler than a cluster of containers on top of the same number of bare metal servers?
- myrandomcomment 9y agoWhat are you trying to do is the key here. Lets say you have some web servers and you also have some applications (games). The load on the games depends on the number of users, how popular it is. If you have a a few racks of servers that are all 100% the same that you can bring up the containers on demand. Have web containers. Have game containers on demand based on load. Bare metal is really for something where you have a reason to consume all the HW, lets say for a DB you want to keep all the set in memory, then bare metal in a cluster with a big box that has lots of RAM. Like I said it is all really use case dependent. The trend today in the target scale systems is load on demand via, VM or container. Also if you use containers with a routing protocol on the server they can move and update the network as they move.