4 ms·

AWS Scaling beyond 1 Million would mean that you have a global audience - AWS does not have any Global LoadBalancer for customers who do not want to use Route53

AWS Scaling beyond 1 Million would mean that you have a global audience - AWS does not have any Global LoadBalancer for customers who do not want to use Route53 - has anyone worked on Global Loadbalancer on AWS infrastructure without Route53 ?

Thaxll 9y ago
What do you mean by global load balancer? You can use AWS loadbalancer without Route53.
- sacheendra 9y ago
  I think he means Anycast routing. Technically, one could run their own nameservers which direct to their own load balancers. Or you could use one of the other DNS providers who provide Anycast support. I think DynDNS does it.
  - minxomat 9y ago
    Anycast is easy to setup. Scaling it is another story: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/build-your-own-anycast-network-9-steps-samir-jafferali https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/build-your-own-anycast-networ... Though most people that are convinced they need anycast would be better served with 53's GeoDNS
jdc0589 9y ago
using route 53 has always been worth it for me, and it's not that hard to only use it for the bits you need rather than using it to manage an entire domain. e.g. my company hosts our own legacy BIND servers, so our main root domains live there, but I wanted to be able to use Route53 for easy DNS updates within Cloudformation. So, we just set up sub-zones in BIND that forward to a route 53 hosted zone (*.prod-aws.whatever.com), and our user facing domain names (foo.whatever.com) just cname to something in the sub-zones (Foo.prod-aws.whatever.com) that route53 manages. That's just one example that's not 100% applicable here, but the point is you can get creative and only use it for what you need, which I've found makes it much easier to accept.
chatmasta 9y ago
A "global load balancer" is not that simple. You can run multiple servers with a single anycast IP, but that will cause problems for 99% of non-UDP traffic. Anycast DNS is one way of pushing local traffic to local servers, but the only thing "load-balanced" is the DNS server itself, not your app. Your app is just geographically routed. If you want true global load balancing, you're beginning to talk about something like WAN optimization and running your own network fabric. If you get to that point, you're probably better off rolling your own than using AWS anyway.
colmmacc 9y ago
We do also have CloudFront - which can front dynamic content, and even integrate with Lambda@Edge to serve responses. But at that point it's not really acting as a load balancer. R53 + Geo DNS | Latency Based DNS | Traffic Manager + Application Load Balancer | Network Balancer is definitely our go-to recommendation and it's used by a variety of customers to handle traffic globally. Route53 supports ALIAS records, so everything still works at the root of your domain (e.g. mydomain.com). Failover is handled with DNS health checks that propagate more quickly than the cascading BGP routing updates that power alternatives such as anycast, as well as avoiding breakage of other in-flight connections due to route table disruption. R53 + Health Checks is what we use for www.amazon.com. I'm curious - what would you prefer to see in an alternative?

Thaxll 9y ago

What do you mean by global load balancer? You can use AWS loadbalancer without Route53.

sacheendra 9y ago
I think he means Anycast routing. Technically, one could run their own nameservers which direct to their own load balancers. Or you could use one of the other DNS providers who provide Anycast support. I think DynDNS does it.
- minxomat 9y ago
  Anycast is easy to setup. Scaling it is another story: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/build-your-own-anycast-network-9-steps-samir-jafferali https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/build-your-own-anycast-networ... Though most people that are convinced they need anycast would be better served with 53's GeoDNS

jdc0589 9y ago

using route 53 has always been worth it for me, and it's not that hard to only use it for the bits you need rather than using it to manage an entire domain. e.g. my company hosts our own legacy BIND servers, so our main root domains live there, but I wanted to be able to use Route53 for easy DNS updates within Cloudformation. So, we just set up sub-zones in BIND that forward to a route 53 hosted zone (*.prod-aws.whatever.com), and our user facing domain names (foo.whatever.com) just cname to something in the sub-zones (Foo.prod-aws.whatever.com) that route53 manages. That's just one example that's not 100% applicable here, but the point is you can get creative and only use it for what you need, which I've found makes it much easier to accept.

chatmasta 9y ago

A "global load balancer" is not that simple. You can run multiple servers with a single anycast IP, but that will cause problems for 99% of non-UDP traffic. Anycast DNS is one way of pushing local traffic to local servers, but the only thing "load-balanced" is the DNS server itself, not your app. Your app is just geographically routed. If you want true global load balancing, you're beginning to talk about something like WAN optimization and running your own network fabric. If you get to that point, you're probably better off rolling your own than using AWS anyway.

colmmacc 9y ago

We do also have CloudFront - which can front dynamic content, and even integrate with Lambda@Edge to serve responses. But at that point it's not really acting as a load balancer. R53 + Geo DNS | Latency Based DNS | Traffic Manager + Application Load Balancer | Network Balancer is definitely our go-to recommendation and it's used by a variety of customers to handle traffic globally. Route53 supports ALIAS records, so everything still works at the root of your domain (e.g. mydomain.com). Failover is handled with DNS health checks that propagate more quickly than the cascading BGP routing updates that power alternatives such as anycast, as well as avoiding breakage of other in-flight connections due to route table disruption. R53 + Health Checks is what we use for www.amazon.com. I'm curious - what would you prefer to see in an alternative?