Ranter
Join devRant
Do all the things like
++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatar
Sign Up
Pipeless API
![](/static/devrant/img/pipeless-devrant-banner-white.png)
From the creators of devRant, Pipeless lets you power real-time personalized recommendations and activity feeds using a simple API
Learn More
Comments
-
Noren11596ySomething is going wrong. That sounds more like they wrote the loadbalancer themselves. A normal loadbalancer would never need 100ms
-
donuts238556y@Noren to add the header? the key point is only affected if the header function is turned on
-
donuts238556y@elgringo its an internal enterprise system by we don't handle the network setup. Request network team to do the LB but dunno if there doing it wrong BC logically there should be no way adding an IP address header would cause such a performance hit
Related Rants
Technical question that I just cant find the answer to anywhere.
I have a load balancer and want it to pass the IP of the original caller to the server. Usually it is done by modifying the header? of the Request HTTP packet? and adding X-Forwarded-For: ....
The LB team though says it needs to modify X-Originating-IP and somehow causes a noticeable impact of the speed of all requests.
I don't know the details but it should only modify the first Packet that has the HTTP headers and should be appending X-Forwarded-For. If only need to modify the Header packet, how can it slow down the whole interaction so much:
-Adds 100ms to a 200ms request
-Increases a 10 minute download to like 20-30 minutes
question