Add routing peer sizing guide#815
Conversation
Add a Sizing Routing Peers page under Networks covering the four-step sizing method, a per-peer capacity table, the tuning levers that matter, and how to scale out by sharding load across identical Networks. Cross-link it from How Routing Peers Work (HA note + related tile) and the Networks overview, and add it to the docs navigation.
Generalize the Acme example to remote users, correct the encrypt/decrypt framing and reach the local network rather than the datacenter, use 'routing peer' instead of 'gateway', and rename the recap to Summary.
Correct the high-availability description: a single Network does not balance load across its peers — different metrics give failover (one peer carries all), equal metrics give latency-based nearest-peer selection, which splits traffic by geography but never evenly. Shard into more Networks to split load deterministically. Also collapse redundant restatements, drop the secondary worked example (the capacity table covers it), and slim the commodity-hardware guidance.
Extend the capacity table down to 1 and 2 vCPUs, drop the 'or more' from the interface column, and adjust the methodology note so the interface column reads uniformly as the minimum NIC to pair with each size.
Add a userspace-mode capacity table showing wireguard-go does not scale across cores (download plateaus ~6.8 Gbps, only ~4-5 cores used), and the cases where a routing peer runs userspace: missing/broken/conflicting kernel module, no TUN device (netstack, incl. rootless Docker), non-Linux peers, and forcing userspace to capture policy IDs and blocked traffic events. Name the exact benchmark CPU (Xeon Platinum 8375C).
Rename the Scaling out heading and reword the body, description, and recap to talk about splitting load across more Networks instead of sharding. Update the in-page anchor link to match the new heading.
Lead each direction bullet with Download:/Upload: and say the routing peer encrypts/decrypts, tying the pulling/pushing distinction to the capacity table's column names.
|
No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉 ℹ️ Recent review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (4)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThis PR adds a new documentation page, ChangesSizing Routing Peers Docs
Estimated code review effort: 2 (Simple) | ~10 minutes Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers: Poem
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches📝 Generate docstrings
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Warning There were issues while running some tools. Please review the errors and either fix the tool's configuration or disable the tool if it's a critical failure. 🔧 ESLint
src/components/NavigationDocs.jsxOops! Something went wrong! :( ESLint: 9.39.4 TypeError: Converting circular structure to JSON src/pages/manage/networks/how-routing-peers-work.mdxOops! Something went wrong! :( ESLint: 9.39.4 TypeError: Converting circular structure to JSON src/pages/manage/networks/index.mdxOops! Something went wrong! :( ESLint: 9.39.4 TypeError: Converting circular structure to JSON
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
1 participant
Summary
Adds a new Sizing Routing Peers page under Manage → Networks (
/manage/networks/sizing-routing-peers), giving admins a method to choose the size and number of routing peers from measured throughput.What the page covers
wireguard-godoes not scale across cores, plus the cases where a routing peer ends up on userspace: missing/broken/conflicting kernel module, no TUN device (netstack, including rootless Docker), non-Linux peers, and forcing userspace to capture policy IDs and blocked traffic events.Wiring
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Documentation