To design a load balancing API between a gRPC client and a Load Balancer to instruct the client how to send load to multiple backend servers.
Prior to any gRPC specifics, we explore some usual ways to approach load balancing.
Using a proxy provides a solid trustable client that can report load to the load balancing system. Proxies typically require more resources to operate since they have temporary copies of the RPC request and response. This model also increases latency to the RPCs.
The proxy model was deemed inefficient when considering request heavy services like storage.
This thicker client places more of the load balancing logic in the client. For example, the client could contain many load balancing policies (Round Robin, Random, etc) used to select servers from a list. In this model, a list of servers would be either statically configured in the client, provided by the name resolution system, an external load balancer, etc. In any case, the client is responsible for choosing the preferred server from the list.
One of the drawbacks of this approach is writing and maintaining the load balancing policies in multiple languages and/or versions of the clients. These policies can be fairly complicated. Some of the algorithms also require client to server communication so the client would need to get thicker to support additional RPCs to get health or load information in addition to sending RPCs for user requests.
It would also significantly complicate the client's code: the new design hides the load balancing complexity of multiple layers and presents it as a simple list of servers to the client.
The client load balancing code is kept simple and portable, implementing well-known algorithms (ie, Round Robin) for server selection. Complex load balancing algorithms are instead provided by the load balancer. The client relies on the load balancer to provide load balancing configuration and the list of servers to which the client should send requests. The balancer updates the server list as needed to balance the load as well as handle server unavailability or health issues. The load balancer will make any necessary complex decisions and inform the client. The load balancer may communicate with the backend servers to collect load and health information.
The gRPC load balancing approach follows the third approach, by having an external load balancer which provides simple clients with a list of servers.
When establishing a gRPC stream to the balancer, the client will send an initial request to the load balancer (via a regular gRPC message). The load balancer will respond with client config (including, for example, settings for flow control, RPC deadlines, etc.) or a redirect to another load balancer. If the balancer did not redirect the client, it will then send a list of servers to the client. The client will contain simple load balancing logic for choosing the next server when it needs to send a request.
The Load Balancer is responsible for providing the client with a list of servers and client RPC parameters. The balancer chooses when to update the list of servers and can decide whether to provide a complete list, a subset, or a specific list of “picked” servers in a particular order. The balancer can optionally provide an expiration interval after which the server list should no longer be trusted and should be updated by the balancer.
The load balancer may open reporting streams to each server contained in the server list. These streams are primarily used for load reporting. For example, Weighted Round Robin requires that the servers report utilization to the load balancer in order to compute the next list of servers.
The gRPC Server is responsible for answering RPC requests and providing responses to the client. The server will also report load to the load balancer if a reporting stream was opened for this purpose.
The load balancer may be separate from the actual server backends and a compromise of the load balancer should only lead to a compromise of the loadbalancing functionality. In other words, a compromised load balancer should not be able to cause a client to trust a (potentially malicious) backend server any more than in a comparable situation without loadbalancing.