5 ms·
It is unfortunate that Fastly did not open source faild. That's the most elegant solution to draining that I have ever seen.
by notyourday 8y ago
It is unfortunate that Fastly did not open source faild. That's the most elegant solution to draining that I have ever seen.
- tehnerd 8y agothere is no big difference compare to what glb is doing. they are encoding next server in mac. glb is doign the same w/ metadata inside gue
- theojulienne 8y agoFastly's MAC-based solution to this was actually one of the existing implementations we read about back when designing the original implementation of GLB in 2015/16, along with Facebook's IPVS-based solution. We loved the ideas behind Fastly's model, but didn't want to mess with Layer 2 to do it. GLB Director took some inspiration from both designs in the creation of L4 second chance and the L4/L7 split design.
- gbrayut 8y agoThanks for the details! I'd love to hear more about any data you have on the efficiency of a "second chance" design vs expanding to three or more failover servers. Very curious if a single alternate is enough to cover majority of incidents (xxx out of 1000 events?) Or how frequently you see failures that fall outside the two chance design decisions. Keep up the great work!