We end up adding real work to the status checks often enough anyway, to make sure the database is still visible and other services. So inference has a lot of power that a heartbeat does not.
Eeeh I’m not so sure. The overhead of handling a hello-world heartbeat request is negligible, sure, but what about the overhead of having the connections open (file descriptors, maybe >1 per request), client tracking metadata for what are necessarily all different client location identifiers, and so on?
That’s still cheap stuff, but at 2krps there are totally realistic scenarios where a system with decent capacity budgeting could still be adversely affected by heartbeats.
And what if a heartbeat client’s network link is degraded and there’s a super long time between first byte and last? Whether or not that client gets evicted from the cluster, if it’s basically slowloris-ing the server that can cause issues too.
I just don't know how you have a 1000 node system and you can't manage to heartbeat everything 2x a second; I don't think you need that many heartbeats in most systems, but it's just not that much work. The only way I can see it being a lot of work is if your nodes are very small; but do you really need a 1000 node esp8266 cluster and you can't get anything bigger for the management node?
> And what if a heartbeat client’s network link is degraded and there’s a super long time between first byte and last? Whether or not that client gets evicted from the cluster, if it’s basically slowloris-ing the server that can cause issues too.
How big is your heartbeat, is the response really going to be in multiple packets? With a 500ms heartbeat and a typical 3-5x no response => dead, you're going to hold onto the partial heartbeat for like 2 seconds.
Which is a totally valid use case for a huge-nodecount cluster! Geo distribution or similar use cases employ this pattern often.
> you're going to hold onto the partial heartbeat for like 2 seconds
And if a region goes down such that a large number of nodes are tarpit-heartbeating at the same time? Your cluster can fail to accept real traffic because it’s clogged with heartbeats.
Like sure, generally 2krps should be fine. But in clusters this large it is totally reasonable to tune heartbeat behavior. I’ve seen plenty of real distributed system failures along these same exact lines.
Maybe in the linuxy servery context we're talking about, but I'll note I've encountered EMFILE and ENFILE errors attempting to open a mere couple hundred files on iOS simultaniously. And while my own experience is over a decade old, here's someone hitting those limits this year: https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/17377
(Context for my own encounter: gamedev, with massively parallel asset streaming and multiple layers of direct blocking dependencies in deserialization. One of my hackarounds involved temporarily closing the least recently read files, and then reopening them on demand in our VFS abstraction. Of course, for non-dev builds, you can just use a pack file and `pread` a single fd from multiple threads, but loose files were handy for incremental dev updates...)
Another option is dynamically adjusting heartbeat interval based on cluster-size to ensure processing heartbeats has a fixed cost. That's what Nomad does and in my 10 year fuzzy memory heartbeating has never caused resource constraints on the schedulers: https://developer.hashicorp.com/nomad/docs/configuration/ser... For reference clusters are commonly over 10k nodes and to my knowledge peak between 20k-30k. At least if anyone is running Nomad larger than that I'd love to hear from them!
That being said the default of 50/s is probably too low, and the liveness tradeoff we force on users is probably not articulated clearly enough.
As an off-the-shelf scheduler we can't encode liveness costs for our users unfortunately, but we try to offer the right knobs to adjust it including per-workload parameters for what to do when heartbeats fail: https://developer.hashicorp.com/nomad/docs/job-specification...
(Disclaimer: I'm on the Nomad team)
Oh, oh, I get to talk about my favorite bug!
I was working on network-booting servers with iPXE and we got a bug saying that things were working fine until the cluster size went over 4/5 machines. In a larger cluster, machines would not come up from a reboot. I thought QA was just being silly, why would the size of the cluster matter? I took a closer look and, sure enough, was able to reproduce the bug. Basically, the machine would sit there stuck trying to download the boot image over TCP from the server.
After some investigation, it turned out to be related to the heartbeats sent between machines (they were ICMP pings). Since iPXE is a very nice and fancy bootloader, it will happily respond to ICMP pings. Note that, in order to do this, it would do an ARP to find address to send the response to. Unfortunately, the size of the ARP cache was pretty small since this was "embedded" software (take a guess how big the cache was...). Essentially, while iPXE was downloading the image, the address of the image server would get pushed out of the ARP cache by all these heartbeats. Thus, the download would suffer since it had to constantly pause to redo the ARP request. So, things would work with a smaller cluster size since the ARP cache was big enough to keep track of the download server and the peers in the cluster.
I think I "fixed" it by responding to the ICMP using the source MAC address (making sure it wasn't broadcast) rather than doing an ARP.
At BigCloud in the early days, things went berserk with a gossip system when A could reach B but B couldn't reach A.
Cloudflare hit something similar though they misclassified the failure mode: https://blog.cloudflare.com/a-byzantine-failure-in-the-real-...
If your 1000-node busy production environment is run so close to the edge that 2000 heartbeat messages per second, push it into overload, that's impressive resource scheduling.
Really, setting the interval balances speed of detection/cost of slow detection vs cost of reacting to a momentary interruption. If the node actually dies, you'd like to react as soon as possible; but if it's something like a link flap or system pause (GC or otherwise), most applications would prefer to wait and not transition state; some applications like live broadcast are better served by moving very rapidly and 500 ms might be too long.
Re: network partitioning, the author left out the really fun splits. Say you have servers in DC, TX, and CA. If there's a damaged (but not severed) link between TX and CA, there's a good chance that DC can talk to everyone, but TX and CA can't communicate. You can have that inside a datacenter too, maybe each node can only reach 75% of the other nodes, but A can reach B and B can reach C does not indicate A can reach C. Lots of fun times there.