I have my React website hosted in AWS on https using a classic load balancer and cloudfront but I now need to have port 1234 opened as well. When I currently browse my domain with port 1234 the page cannot be displayed. The reason I want port 1234 opened as this is where my nodeJs web server is running for React to communicate with.
I tried adding port 1234 into my load balancer listener settings although it made no difference. It's noticeable the load balancer health check panel seems to only have one value which is currently HTTP:80/index.html. I assume the load balancer can listen to port 80 and 1234 (even though it can only perform a health check on one port number)?
Do I need to use action groups or something else to open up the port? Please help, any advice much appreciated.
Many thanks,
Load balancer settings
Infrastructure
I am using the following
EC2 (free tier) with the two code projects installed (React website and node server on the same machine in different directories)
Certificate created (using Certificate Manager)
I have created a CloudFront Distribution and verified it using email. My certificate was selected in the cloud front as the customer SSL certificate
I have a classic load balancer (instance points to my only EC2) and the status is InService. When I visit the load balancer DNS name value I see my React website. The load balancer listens to HTTP port 80. I've added port 1234 but this didn't help
Note:
Please note this project is to learn AWS, React and NodeJs so if things are strange please indicate
EC2 instance screenshot
Security group screenshot
Load balancer screenshot
Target group screenshot
An attempt to register a target group
Thank you for having clarified your architecture.
I woud keep CloudFront out of the game now and be sure your setup works with just the load balancer. When everything will be configured correctly, you can easily add Cloudfront as a next step. In general, for all things in IT, it is easier to build a simple system that is working and increase complexity one step at a time rather than debugging a complex system that does not work.
The idea is to have an Application Load Balancer with two listeners, one for the web (TCP 80) and one for the API (TCP 123). The ALB will have two target groups (one for each port on your EC2 instance) and you will create Listeners rules to forward the correct port to the correct target groups. Please read "Application Load Balancer components" to understand how ALBs work.
Here are a couple of thing to check
be sure you have two listeners and two target group on your Application Load Balancer
the load balancer must be in a security group allowing TCP 80 and TCP 1234 from anywhere (0.0.0.0/0) (let's say SG-001)
the EC2 instance must be in a security group allowing TCP connections on port 1234 (for the API) and 80 (for the web site) only from source SG-001 (just the load balancer)
After having written all this, I realise you are using Classic Load Balancer. This should work as well, just be sure your EC2 instance has the correct security group (two rules, one for each port)
Related
I have a MERN application with the frontend hosted on Netlify. I currently have the backend hosted at onrender.com. However this is quite slow and so was looking for something with faster load rates.
I have set up an EC2 instance on AWS and it is much faster, but I am struggling to enable HTTPS traffic.
The current setup:
EC2 instance set up and backend running. (I have ran it locally over http and it works fine).
AWS: security groups enabled https
The issue is that when I try to connect over https, it does not work.
I have tried various things including the ACM certificates (I have a certificate for my domain), creating load balancers that would direct to my instance, but I don't seem to succeeding. Admittedly, I don't fully understand what exactly I need to do here.
The outcome I want is to simply interact with the backend, which is on an AWS ubuntu instance, from my frontend over https.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
if you are going the Load Balancer way, should be fairly simple.
Yes, it is a good idea to use ACM to provision Certificate for you.
Make sure that the Security Groups are well configured
In your case the Load Balancer should accept traffic from port 80 and 443
The Instance security group should be open where you have configured the instance to listen, it depends on your impmenetation
In the target group make sure that you have configured the target port correctly (that is the ec2 open port, where recieves traffic), also make sure that the health check is configured correctly.
I attached a quick summary how this little architecture should look like
I have a running Web server on Google Cloud. It's a Debian VM serving a few sites with low-ish traffic, but I don't like Cloudflare. So, Cloud CDN it is.
I created a load balancer with static IP.
I do all the items from the guides I've found. But when it comes time to Add origin to Cloud CDN, no load balancer is available because it's "unhealthy", as seen by rolling over the yellow triangle in the LB status page: "1 backend service is unhealthy".
At this point, the only option is to choose Create a Load Balancer.
I've created several load balancers with different attributes, thinking that might be it, but no luck. They all get the "1 backend service is unhealthy" tag, and thus are unavailable.
---Edit below---
During LB creation, I don't see anywhere that causes the LB to know about the VM, except in cert issue (see below). Nowhere does it ask for any field that would point to the VM.
I created another LB just now, and here are those settings. It finishes, then it's marked unhealthy.
Type
HTTP(S) Load Balancing
Internet facing or internal only?
From Internet to my VMs
(my VM is not listed in backend services, so I create one... is this the problem?)
Create backend service
Backend type: Instanced group
Port numbers: 80,443
Enable Cloud CDN: checked
Health check: create new: https, check /
Simple host and path rule: checked
New Frontend IP and port
Protocol: HTTPS
IP: v4, static reserved and issued
Port: 443
Certificate: Create New: Create Google-managed certificate, mydomain.com and www.mydomain.com
Load balancer's unhealthy state could mean that your LB's healthcheck probe is unable to reach your backend service(Your Debian VM in this case).
If your backend service looks good now, I think there is a problem with your firewall configuration.
Check your firewall rules whether it allows healthcheck probe's IP address range or not.
Refer to the docoment below to get more detailed information.
Required firewall rule
I've an application up and running on and EC2 instance at port 5000. I've been trying to add either application load balancer or classic load balancer to route my traffic to this application.
Until at this point, the application is available over HTTP protocol at http://example.com:5000/.
So my question is, what steps I need to do to make this application available without typing the port number in the URL.
Please note that I want to have multiple instances of the app up and running at different ports and are mapped to different subdomains.
Thanks
So after spending couple of hours and going through the documentation again, this is how it worked for me.
Created an Application load balancer
Created a Target Group that listens on HTTP port 80.
In this target group, selected the ec2 instance and registered it on port 5000
In the load balancer section, added two listeners. One for HTTP and one for HTTPs. Added default action to forward all traffic to that Target Group that was created in step 2. and it all worked for me.
The important bit was to set up the Target Group in step 2 and 3 correctly. I was creating two target groups for http and https separately which was incorrect. I just had to creat one target group for http only.
I have a small nodejs application containing a web socket server.
The app is hosted inside an ecs container so it is basically a docker image running on an ec2 instance.
The web socket works as expected over ws://. I use port 5000 for this.
In order to use it on my SSL secured website (https), i need to use a secured web socket connection over wss://.
To archive that I've created a certificate on aws (like many times before) and after I create a load balancer.
I tried an application load balancer, a network load balancer and the classic load balancer (previous generation).
I read a few answers here on StackOverflow and followed the instructions as well as some tutorials found using google.
I tried a lot without success. Of course, this takes a lot of time because the creation of a load balancer and other resources takes quite a bit of time.
How I create a load balancer on aws pointing to my instance with wss://. Could someone please provide an example or instructions?
The solution posted
https://anandhub.wordpress.com/2016/10/06/websocket-ebs/ appears to work well.
Rather than selecting https and http, select the 'SSL' on port 443 and 'TCP' on your applications port (eg 5000)
You'll need to load your key/certificate via AWS and the loadbalancer will handle the secure part. I suspect you can not take advantage of 'sticky' features of the LB with this method.
I have an domain that needs to be routed to both an Application Load Balancer and an EC2-instance depending on the URL path. The Application Load Balancer has a limit of 10 rules per ALB, and I need more.
So to workaround this limit of 10 URLs I would like to setup a request pipeline as follows:
ALB for domain.com -> Docker container with HAProxy with routing rules/reverse proxy -> routes to another ALB or EC2-instance
The setup is fine, I'm having problems with setting up the HAProxy and it's health check. I would like the ALB to health check on a different port rather than the traffic port. In HAProxy I can simply setup multiple frontends, one for the routing (port 80) and one for health check (port 60000). But if I enter port 60000 in the ALBs target group I can't deploy another service due to the dynamic mapping.
Any ideas how to solve this? I rather not expose the health check on port 80 due to it being available for the public net but if that's the only solution it's fine (but how to do it?).
I ended up with using monitor-uri as the healthcheck, not ideal since it's exposed to port 80 but no secret info is showing there anyway.