As @brk0v mentions, all of this kind of load balancing is done through the client in a way that is transparent to the user. In particular, the way this works is that each process in the cluster uses the cluster file as a discovery mechanism. Essentially, all of the servers get registered by a central authority (discovered through the cluster file) and given roles. Then the clients talk to that same central authority (directly or indirectly) and then can do things like load balance their subsequent requests amongst the cluster.
My guess is that because of how the networking works in fdb, adding a proxy between the client and servers would probably confuse the client. For example, each client reads keys be reading directly from a storage server that has the key it needs which it gets the address of through this registry information. If the IP and port registered don’t match the required one (because it’s through a load balancing proxy), you won’t be able to reach that server.
Creating a cluster file manually and then distributing it out sounds reasonable to me as a cluster file distribution scheme. There’s more on the format of this file in the Administration Guide. You could spin one up and then copy it over, but I suspect that that will end up being more hassle than it’s worth in the long run (though maybe it’s fine for an initial cluster).
I’m not sure I totally understand this question, but are you asking how to configure the process classes of each fdbserver process? I think the most helpful thing that may not be obvious from the docs is that the transaction log processes use way more disk I/O than the storage server processes, so for best performance, you will probably want to make sure that those processes are using a different disk (if possible, a better, faster disk) than the storage servers. If you’re looking for the number of each roll to include (e.g., logs=4
, proxies=5
, etc.), then that’s harder for me to give you more general advice, but that will depend on the number of machines in your cluster. Are you at 5 servers with 1 disk each? You might need to run an additional process per server of the “stateless” class (they won’t all get used). Also, it might be good if you can run at least three transaction logs and three storage servers (so that you can loose a disk from either one and still have two of each, the required number for double redundancy). So 6 disks (three large for the storage and three small for the transaction logs, if possible) would probably be my advice.