Mastering Kong Performance for Scalable APIs

In the relentless march of digital transformation, Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) have emerged as the foundational bedrock upon which modern applications, microservices architectures, and intricate digital ecosystems are built. They are the conduits through which data flows, services communicate, and innovation proliferates. As the number and complexity of these integrations grow exponentially, the performance of the underlying api gateway becomes not merely a technical consideration but a critical business imperative. An api gateway acts as the single entry point for all client requests, routing them to the appropriate backend services, enforcing policies, and providing a crucial layer of security and management. Among the pantheon of api gateway solutions, Kong stands out as a powerful, flexible, and widely adopted open-source platform.

However, deploying Kong is only the first step. Truly harnessing its potential for applications demanding high availability, low latency, and massive throughput requires a deep understanding of its architecture, meticulous configuration, and continuous optimization. This comprehensive guide delves into the nuances of mastering Kong performance for scalable APIs, offering insights and actionable strategies that extend beyond basic setup, transforming your gateway from a mere traffic cop into a high-performance orchestrator capable of handling the most demanding workloads. We will explore everything from foundational principles and deployment strategies to advanced database tuning, Nginx optimization, plugin management, and proactive monitoring, ensuring your api infrastructure is not just functional, but relentlessly efficient and infinitely scalable. The journey to a truly high-performing api ecosystem begins here, with a detailed exploration of how to squeeze every ounce of performance from your Kong api gateway.

Understanding Kong's Architecture and Core Components

To effectively optimize Kong's performance, one must first grasp its fundamental architecture and the interplay of its core components. Kong is more than just a proxy; it’s a sophisticated api gateway built on top of Nginx and OpenResty, leveraging LuaJIT for high performance. This foundation allows Kong to process requests with incredible speed and flexibility, but also introduces layers where performance can be either gained or lost.

At its heart, Kong comprises two primary logical components: the Data Plane and the Control Plane.

The Data Plane is where the real-time api traffic processing occurs. It consists of the Kong nodes themselves, which are essentially highly optimized Nginx instances configured by Kong. Each Data Plane node receives incoming client requests, applies various policies (authentication, rate-limiting, transformations, logging, etc.) via its plugin architecture, and then proxies these requests to the appropriate upstream services. The efficiency of the Data Plane is paramount for overall api performance, as it directly impacts latency and throughput. It is stateless with respect to its configuration once loaded, meaning it fetches its configuration from the Control Plane or database and then operates independently for each request. This design allows for horizontal scaling of the Data Plane nodes to handle increased traffic without directly impacting the Control Plane's workload.

The Control Plane, on the other hand, is responsible for managing the Kong configuration. This includes defining Services, Routes, Consumers, Plugins, and all other api gateway policies. Administrators interact with the Control Plane through Kong's Admin API or Kong Manager (UI) to create, update, and delete these configurations. The Control Plane then persists this configuration in a backend database and communicates it to the Data Plane nodes. In older versions or traditional deployments, the Control Plane and Data Plane often resided on the same Kong node. However, modern, high-scale deployments increasingly favor a decoupled architecture where the Control Plane is distinct from the Data Plane, allowing for greater flexibility, security, and scalability. This separation prevents administrative operations from directly impacting real-time api traffic and enables more granular scaling of each component.

Finally, a Database serves as the central repository for Kong's configuration data. Kong supports both PostgreSQL and Cassandra. This database stores all the api gateway configurations, including services, routes, consumers, plugins, and their respective settings. The choice of database and its proper configuration are absolutely critical to Kong's performance. Every Data Plane node periodically fetches its configuration from this database. If the database is slow or poorly tuned, it can introduce significant delays during node startup, configuration updates, and even impact the runtime performance as nodes might struggle to retrieve or refresh policies. The database effectively acts as the single source of truth for your api gateway policies, and its health and performance are intrinsically linked to the overall stability and speed of your Kong instance. Understanding these three pillars—Data Plane, Control Plane, and Database—is the cornerstone of any successful Kong performance optimization strategy, as each presents unique opportunities and challenges for achieving a high-performing and scalable api infrastructure.

Foundational Performance Principles for APIs

Before diving into Kong-specific optimizations, it's essential to revisit the foundational performance principles that govern any robust api infrastructure. The api gateway is a critical component, but its performance is deeply intertwined with the health and efficiency of the entire system it manages. Neglecting these fundamental aspects can undermine even the most meticulously tuned Kong deployment.

The primary metrics for api performance are universally recognized: * Latency: The time it takes for a request to travel from the client, through the api gateway and backend services, and back to the client. Lower latency is always desirable, as it directly impacts user experience and application responsiveness. * Throughput: The number of requests or transactions processed per unit of time (e.g., requests per second, RPS). High throughput indicates the system's capacity to handle a large volume of concurrent api calls. * Error Rate: The percentage of failed requests. A low error rate signifies system stability and reliability, crucial for maintaining service level agreements (SLAs).

Beyond these metrics, several underlying factors critically influence overall api performance:

Network Topology and Infrastructure: The physical and logical arrangement of your network profoundly affects api latency. Proximity between clients, the api gateway, and backend services minimizes network hop count and transmission delays. High-bandwidth, low-latency network connections are non-negotiable. Even within a data center or cloud region, careful placement of Kong nodes and backend services on the same network segments, or even in the same availability zones, can yield significant performance gains. Load balancers placed in front of Kong should also be optimally configured to distribute traffic efficiently and avoid introducing bottlenecks. Network devices themselves, such as firewalls and routers, must be adequately provisioned to handle peak traffic without becoming choke points.

Server Specifications and Resource Allocation: The hardware or virtual machine resources allocated to Kong nodes and their backend database are fundamental. * CPU: Kong is CPU-intensive, especially with complex plugin chains or SSL/TLS termination. Sufficient CPU cores are essential to handle concurrent requests and Nginx worker processes. * Memory: While Kong's core Nginx process is efficient, plugins, LuaJIT bytecode, and operating system caches require adequate memory. Swapping to disk due to insufficient RAM will severely degrade performance. * Disk I/O: While Kong itself isn't disk-I/O bound for runtime operations, the database certainly is. Fast SSDs or NVMe storage are critical for database performance, affecting configuration loading, updates, and overall database responsiveness. Even for Kong nodes, logs are written to disk, and slow I/O can impact logging performance.

Impact of Database Choice and Configuration: As discussed, Kong's configuration resides in a backend database. The choice between PostgreSQL and Cassandra, and their subsequent configuration, has a monumental impact on api gateway performance. * PostgreSQL: Offers strong consistency and is generally simpler to manage for smaller to medium-scale deployments. Its performance is heavily reliant on disk I/O, proper indexing, and efficient query execution. * Cassandra: Designed for high availability and linear scalability, making it suitable for very large, globally distributed Kong deployments. However, it requires a deeper understanding of its distributed nature, data modeling, and eventual consistency implications. Its performance is often limited by network latency between nodes and efficient garbage collection.

Regardless of the choice, a poorly configured database—lacking appropriate indices, having an undersized connection pool, or not being regularly maintained (e.g., PostgreSQL VACUUM operations)—can become the primary bottleneck for your entire api gateway. Even if the Data Plane is blazing fast, delays in fetching or refreshing configuration from a struggling database can lead to stale policies or slow startup times for Kong nodes. Robust monitoring of database performance metrics (connection counts, query latency, disk I/O, cache hit ratios) is indispensable.

By meticulously addressing these foundational principles, you create a solid groundwork upon which Kong-specific optimizations can truly flourish. Neglecting them is akin to building a skyscraper on sand; even the most advanced api gateway technology will falter without a strong underlying infrastructure.

Kong Deployment Strategies and Their Performance Implications

The manner in which Kong is deployed has significant implications for its performance, scalability, and resilience. Choosing the right deployment strategy involves balancing factors like operational complexity, cost, and the specific performance requirements of your api workload.

Single-node vs. Multi-node Deployments

Single-node Deployment: In a single-node setup, both the Control Plane and Data Plane components of Kong reside on the same server or container. This is the simplest deployment model, often used for development, testing, or very small-scale production environments. * Performance Implications: * Pros: Minimal network latency between Control Plane and Data Plane (they're co-located). Easier to set up and manage. * Cons: A single point of failure. Limited scalability, as all traffic and administrative operations contend for the same resources. If the node fails, all api traffic is interrupted. Performance can degrade significantly under heavy load as administrative tasks (e.g., adding a new api) can directly impact live traffic processing. This model severely limits the maximum throughput of your api gateway.

Multi-node Deployment: For any serious production workload, a multi-node deployment is essential. Here, multiple Kong Data Plane nodes run concurrently, sharing the same backend database. An external load balancer distributes incoming api traffic across these Data Plane nodes. * Performance Implications: * Pros: High availability (no single point of failure for traffic processing). Significantly improved scalability and throughput, as traffic can be distributed across many nodes. Administrative operations on one node don't directly impact the others, improving overall stability. Each node can be independently scaled based on traffic demands, effectively boosting the total capacity of the api gateway. * Cons: Increased operational complexity due to managing multiple instances and an external load balancer. Requires careful database sizing and tuning, as all Data Plane nodes contend for database resources.

Hybrid Mode (Decoupled Control Plane and Data Plane)

Hybrid mode is an advanced multi-node strategy that explicitly separates the Control Plane from the Data Plane. Dedicated Control Plane nodes manage configuration, while dedicated Data Plane nodes exclusively handle api traffic. Data Plane nodes connect to the Control Plane (rather than directly to the database) to fetch their configurations. This is Kong's recommended deployment mode for production. * Performance Implications: * Pros: * Enhanced Scalability: Data Plane nodes can scale independently and elastically without burdening the Control Plane or the database directly with connection load for configuration fetches. This allows the api gateway to handle massive traffic spikes with greater agility. * Improved Resilience: Control Plane failures do not immediately affect traffic processing on Data Plane nodes, which continue to operate with their last known configuration. * Security: Data Plane nodes can be deployed without direct database access, reducing the attack surface. * Reduced Database Load: Data Plane nodes connect to the Control Plane over HTTP/S, offloading direct database connection and query load from the database. The Control Plane acts as a caching layer for configuration, reducing database hits. * Geographic Distribution: Data Plane nodes can be distributed geographically closer to consumers, reducing latency, while the Control Plane can remain in a central location. * Cons: Adds another layer of complexity to the deployment architecture. Requires careful management and monitoring of both Control Plane and Data Plane instances.

Containerization (Docker) and Orchestration (Kubernetes) Considerations

Modern deployments increasingly leverage containerization with Docker and orchestration with Kubernetes for managing Kong instances. * Docker: Provides a lightweight, portable, and consistent environment for running Kong. It simplifies dependency management and ensures that Kong behaves identically across different environments. * Kubernetes: Offers powerful features for automating deployment, scaling, and management of containerized Kong instances. * Performance Implications: * Autoscaling: Kubernetes enables horizontal pod autoscaling (HPA) for Kong Data Plane nodes based on CPU utilization or custom metrics, allowing the api gateway to dynamically adjust its capacity to match demand, optimizing resource usage and ensuring consistent performance. * Resource Management: Kubernetes allows precise resource limits and requests (CPU, memory) to be defined for Kong pods, preventing resource contention and ensuring stable performance. Over-provisioning or under-provisioning can both lead to performance issues. * Service Discovery & Load Balancing: Kubernetes' built-in service discovery and load balancing capabilities simplify routing traffic to Kong and from Kong to backend services. * Rolling Updates: Kubernetes facilitates seamless, zero-downtime updates for Kong, which is critical for maintaining api availability and performance during upgrades or configuration changes. * Hybrid Mode in Kubernetes: Deploying Kong in hybrid mode on Kubernetes is highly recommended. Control Plane components can be deployed as a separate Kubernetes Deployment, and Data Plane components as another, leveraging Kubernetes' native scaling and management for each.

However, deploying Kong on Kubernetes also introduces its own set of challenges, such as configuring network policies, persistent storage for the database, and advanced ingress/egress rules. It requires expertise in Kubernetes operations to fully realize the performance benefits.

Table: Comparison of Kong Deployment Strategies

Feature/Strategy	Single-Node (Traditional)	Multi-Node (Traditional)	Hybrid Mode (Recommended)	Kubernetes w/ Hybrid Mode
Scalability	Limited	Good (Data Plane)	Excellent (Independent)	Excellent (Elastic HPA)
High Availability	Poor (SPOF)	Good	Excellent	Excellent (Self-healing)
Resilience	Low	Medium	High	Very High
Operational Complexity	Low	Medium	High	Very High
Database Load	High (per node)	High (shared)	Lower (Control Plane acts as proxy/cache)	Lowest (Control Plane optimized)
Configuration Updates	Direct impact on traffic	Minimal impact	No direct impact on traffic	Seamless via Rolling Updates
Security	Lower isolation	Moderate isolation	High isolation (no DB access for DP)	Very High (Network Policies)
Resource Efficiency	Low (contention)	Moderate	High	Very High (Autoscaling)
Target Use Case	Dev/Test, Tiny Prod	Medium Prod	Large Prod, Geo-distributed	Massive Scale, Cloud Native

By carefully considering these deployment strategies, organizations can establish a robust, high-performing api gateway infrastructure that scales dynamically with their evolving api traffic demands. For most production environments, embracing a multi-node, hybrid mode deployment, especially within an orchestrated environment like Kubernetes, offers the optimal balance of performance, scalability, and operational efficiency for your api needs.

Database Optimization for Kong

The database underpins Kong's entire operation, storing all its configuration data. A poorly performing database can quickly become the biggest bottleneck, regardless of how well Kong itself is configured. Optimizing your chosen database—PostgreSQL or Cassandra—is therefore a crucial step in mastering Kong performance.

PostgreSQL Optimization

PostgreSQL is often the go-to choice for initial Kong deployments due to its familiarity, strong consistency, and robust feature set. To get the best performance for your api gateway, several areas require attention:

1. Hardware Considerations:
   • SSD/NVMe Storage: PostgreSQL is heavily I/O-bound. Using fast solid-state drives (SSDs) or Non-Volatile Memory Express (NVMe) storage is paramount. Spinning disks are generally unsuitable for production Kong databases.
   • RAM: Allocate sufficient RAM for caching. PostgreSQL heavily relies on memory for shared_buffers (data cache) and work_mem (sort/hash operations). A good starting point for shared_buffers is 25% of total RAM, but it can be adjusted based on workload.
   • CPU: While less critical than I/O and RAM for a pure configuration database, enough CPU cores are needed for query processing and background tasks.
2. Indexing Strategies:
   • Kong creates necessary indexes by default, but monitoring query performance (especially if you have many api objects or frequent configuration changes) can reveal opportunities for custom indexes.
   • Use pg_stat_statements to identify slow queries and EXPLAIN ANALYZE to understand their execution plans. Ensure indexes are being utilized for frequently queried columns in Kong's tables.
   • Avoid over-indexing, as each index adds overhead to write operations.
3. Connection Pooling:
   • Each Kong Data Plane node maintains a set of connections to the database. If you have many Data Plane nodes, the total number of connections can overwhelm the database.
   • Use a connection pooler like PgBouncer between Kong Data Plane nodes and the PostgreSQL database. PgBouncer allows many client connections to share a smaller, fixed number of actual database connections, reducing database overhead and improving connection management.
   • Configure max_connections in postgresql.conf appropriately. Setting it too high consumes excessive memory; too low leads to connection rejections.
4. WAL (Write-Ahead Log) Tuning:
   • PostgreSQL's WAL ensures data durability. Tuning WAL parameters can impact write performance.
   • wal_buffers: Increase this to allow more WAL data to accumulate in memory before flushing to disk, potentially reducing disk I/O.
   • synchronous_commit: For highly critical data, on ensures maximum durability. For less critical operations where some data loss is acceptable in a crash (e.g., in a replica scenario), off or local can improve write performance at the risk of losing very recent committed transactions. For Kong's configuration, on is generally preferred for data integrity.
5. Vacuuming and Autovacuum:
   • PostgreSQL uses Multi-Version Concurrency Control (MVCC), which means old versions of rows are not immediately deleted. VACUUM reclaims storage occupied by dead tuples.
   • autovacuum: Ensure autovacuum is enabled and properly configured. It automatically runs VACUUM and ANALYZE (which updates statistics for the query planner). Aggressive autovacuum settings can be beneficial for busy Kong databases to prevent table bloat and ensure the query planner has up-to-date statistics.
   • Monitor table bloat and autovacuum activity (pg_stat_user_tables).
   • If you have extremely high write activity, consider manually scheduling VACUUM FULL during maintenance windows, though this locks tables and is often less desirable than well-tuned autovacuum.
6. postgresql.conf Tuning (Key Parameters):
   • effective_cache_size: Set to a value that reflects the total amount of OS memory available for caching, typically 50-75% of total RAM. Helps the query planner make better decisions.
   • checkpoint_timeout and max_wal_size: These control how frequently checkpoints occur. Tuning them can balance recovery time after a crash with write performance.
   • work_mem: Memory used for internal sort and hash operations. If many complex queries are run (e.g., by Kong Manager), increasing this can help.
   • maintenance_work_mem: Memory used by VACUUM, CREATE INDEX, and ALTER TABLE. Increase this for faster maintenance tasks.

Cassandra Optimization

Cassandra is a distributed NoSQL database designed for linear scalability and high availability, making it suitable for very large-scale, geographically distributed Kong deployments. Optimizing Cassandra for Kong involves a different set of considerations:

1. Data Modeling for Kong:
   • Kong's data model in Cassandra is optimized for its access patterns. Avoid altering it unless you have a deep understanding of Cassandra and Kong internals.
   • The key is to understand how Kong queries Cassandra for configuration, usually by primary key.
2. Cluster Sizing and Topology:
   • Number of Nodes: Start with at least 3 nodes for production to ensure quorum and fault tolerance. Scale horizontally by adding more nodes as data volume or query load increases.
   • Rack Awareness: Deploy Cassandra nodes across different racks (physical or logical, e.g., availability zones in the cloud) to protect against rack-level failures.
   • Hardware: Cassandra is resource-hungry. Each node needs ample CPU, RAM, and fast local storage (SSDs/NVMe) for data files and commit logs. Network bandwidth between nodes is also critical for replication.
3. Replication Factors (RF) and Consistency Levels (CL):
   • Replication Factor (RF): For production, an RF of 3 is common, meaning each piece of data is stored on 3 different nodes. This provides high availability.
   • Consistency Level (CL): Kong generally uses QUORUM consistency for reads and writes to ensure data integrity.
     • QUORUM means a majority of replicas (e.g., 2 out of 3) must respond for a read/write to succeed. This offers a good balance between consistency and availability/performance.
     • Higher CLs (e.g., ALL) offer stronger consistency but at the cost of higher latency and lower availability. Lower CLs (e.g., ONE) offer better performance but weaker consistency. Stick with QUORUM for Kong's configuration.
4. Compaction Strategies:
   • Cassandra stores data in immutable SSTables. Compaction is the process of merging these SSTables, removing deleted data, and combining data for the same partition key.
   • LeveledCompactionStrategy (LCS): Good for read-heavy workloads with uniform data distribution, but can generate high I/O.
   • SizeTieredCompactionStrategy (STCS): Default, good for write-heavy workloads, but can lead to larger disk usage and more read amplification.
   • For Kong's configuration, which is more read-heavy but has periodic writes (config changes), LCS might be more suitable, but monitor its I/O impact.
5. Garbage Collection (GC) Tuning:
   • Cassandra is a Java application, and JVM garbage collection pauses can significantly impact latency, especially on busy nodes.
   • Use a low-pause GC algorithm like G1GC (enabled by default in recent Java versions) and tune its parameters in jvm.options.
   • Monitor GC logs closely to identify long pauses and adjust heap size (-Xms, -Xmx) and GC settings accordingly. A typical starting point for heap size might be 8-16GB.
6. cassandra.yaml Configuration (Key Parameters):
   • num_tokens: Determines the number of vnodes. High numbers (e.g., 256) improve data distribution and node replacement efficiency.
   • commitlog_sync_period_in_ms: How often the commit log is flushed to disk. Lower values increase durability but reduce write performance.
   • memtable_flush_writers: Number of threads flushing memtables. Increase for high write throughput.
   • concurrent_reads / concurrent_writes: Adjust these based on your workload to control thread concurrency for I/O operations.

Regardless of your database choice, continuous monitoring of key database metrics (connections, query times, I/O wait, CPU utilization, cache hit ratios, GC activity) is non-negotiable. Tools like Prometheus and Grafana, or cloud-provider specific monitoring solutions, should be integrated to provide a real-time view of your database's health and performance, allowing for proactive adjustments and preventing bottlenecks for your api gateway.

Kong Configuration Tuning for Optimal Throughput and Latency

Once the underlying infrastructure and database are optimized, the next critical step is to fine-tune Kong's own configuration. Kong, being built on Nginx and OpenResty, inherits much of its performance characteristics from Nginx, while its Lua plugin architecture adds another layer of performance considerations.

Nginx Configuration (Underlying Kong)

Kong leverages Nginx as its high-performance proxy server. Understanding and tuning the Nginx parameters that Kong exposes (or implicitly uses) is vital for maximizing throughput and minimizing latency. These settings are typically configured via environment variables or the kong.conf file.

1. worker_processes:
   • This directive determines the number of Nginx worker processes that will handle incoming requests. Each worker process is single-threaded and runs independently.
   • Recommendation: Set worker_processes to the number of CPU cores available on your Kong Data Plane node. This allows Nginx to fully utilize the server's processing power without excessive context switching, maximizing the capacity of your api gateway.
   • Example (kong.conf): worker_processes = auto (or a specific number like worker_processes = 4)
2. keepalive_timeout:
   • This parameter defines how long an idle keep-alive connection remains open on the server side. Keep-alive connections reduce the overhead of establishing new TCP connections and SSL/TLS handshakes for subsequent requests from the same client.
   • Recommendation: For typical api traffic, a keepalive_timeout of 30-75 seconds is often effective. Too short, and connections are unnecessarily re-established. Too long, and server resources are held by idle connections. Monitor client api call patterns to find an optimal balance.
   • Example (kong.conf): nginx_keepalive_timeout = 60
3. worker_connections:
   • This sets the maximum number of simultaneous connections that a single Nginx worker process can open. This includes client-facing connections and connections to upstream services.
   • Recommendation: This value should be high enough to handle anticipated concurrent connections. A common starting point is 1024 to 4096. The total maximum connections for Kong will be worker_processes * worker_connections. Ensure your operating system's open file limit (ulimit -n) is set higher than this value.
   • Example (kong.conf): nginx_worker_connections = 4096
4. Buffer Sizes (client_body_buffer_size, proxy_buffer_size, etc.):
   • These directives control the memory buffers Nginx uses for handling request bodies, proxy responses, and other data.
   • client_body_buffer_size: Affects how Nginx handles incoming request bodies. If a body exceeds this size, it's typically buffered to disk, which is slower.
   • proxy_buffer_size and proxy_buffers: Control how Nginx buffers responses from upstream services. Insufficient buffer sizes can lead to Nginx frequently writing to disk, degrading performance.
   • Recommendation: Adjust these based on the typical size of your api request and response payloads. For larger payloads, increasing these can prevent disk I/O, but consume more memory per connection.
   • Example (kong.conf): nginx_proxy_buffer_size = 128k, nginx_proxy_buffers = 4 256k
5. SSL/TLS Optimization:
   • SSL/TLS termination adds CPU overhead due to encryption/decryption and handshakes. Optimizing this is crucial for the performance of your api gateway.
   • SSL Session Caching (ssl_session_cache, ssl_session_timeout): Enable and configure session caching to allow clients to resume previous TLS sessions without a full handshake, significantly reducing CPU load.
   • Cipher Suites (ssl_ciphers): Prioritize fast, modern, and secure cipher suites. Avoid older, weaker, or computationally expensive ones.
   • HTTP/2: Enable HTTP/2 for clients that support it. HTTP/2 offers multiplexing, header compression, and server push, which can reduce latency, especially for clients making multiple concurrent requests to the same api gateway.
   • Recommendation: Use secure and performant cipher suites, enable session caching with a reasonable timeout (e.g., 5-10 minutes), and enable HTTP/2.

Kong Specific Configurations

Beyond Nginx, Kong offers its own set of configurations that directly impact api gateway performance.

1. Plugin Selection and Order:
   • Kong's power comes from its plugin architecture, but each activated plugin adds overhead to the request/response lifecycle.
   • Recommendation:
     • Minimize Plugins: Only enable plugins that are strictly necessary for a given api or route.
     • Order Matters: The order of plugins in the execution chain can affect performance. Place computationally lighter plugins or those that can terminate a request early (e.g., acl or rate-limiting) earlier in the chain. Heavy plugins (e.g., complex transformations, extensive logging) should be placed later.
     • Global vs. Specific: Apply plugins globally only if they are truly needed for all traffic. Otherwise, apply them to specific services or routes to limit their impact.
2. Caching Mechanisms:
   • DNS Caching (dns_resolver, dns_stale_ttl, dns_not_found_ttl, dns_error_ttl): Kong relies on DNS resolution to find upstream services. An unoptimized DNS setup can introduce significant latency. Configure a fast, reliable DNS resolver and enable caching with appropriate TTLs to minimize DNS lookup overhead.
   • Response Caching (e.g., using a custom plugin or Nginx capabilities): For static or infrequently changing api responses, implementing a response caching mechanism (either within Kong via a plugin or in an external caching layer) can dramatically reduce load on backend services and improve api latency. Be mindful of cache invalidation strategies. Kong's Enterprise version offers a built-in Response Caching plugin. For open-source, you might need a custom Lua plugin or rely on proxy_cache directives via nginx_kong_conf.
3. Rate Limiting Strategies:
   • While essential for protecting backend services, inefficient rate limiting can impact performance.
   • Recommendation: Choose the appropriate rate-limiting algorithm (e.g., sliding window vs. fixed window) based on your requirements.
   • Backend Storage: For distributed rate limiting across multiple Kong nodes, a shared backend (Redis or database) is required. Ensure this backend is highly performant and accessible with low latency. Redis is generally preferred for its speed.
   • Granularity: Configure rate limits at the most appropriate granularity (e.g., per consumer, per IP, per credential).
4. Load Balancing Algorithms (balancer_algorithm):
   • Kong supports various load balancing algorithms for distributing traffic to upstream targets.
   • round-robin (default): Simple and effective for uniformly performing upstream services.
   • least-connections: Directs traffic to the upstream with the fewest active connections, better for services with varying processing times.
   • consistent-hashing: Routes requests based on a hash of a request property (e.g., IP address, header), useful for sticky sessions or caching.
   • Recommendation: Choose an algorithm that best suits your backend service characteristics and traffic patterns. least-connections is often a good general-purpose choice for dynamic workloads.
5. Circuit Breakers:
   • While primarily a resiliency pattern, circuit breakers can indirectly improve performance by preventing the api gateway from repeatedly sending requests to a failing upstream service, thus freeing up resources and reducing client-side timeouts.
   • Recommendation: Implement circuit breakers (e.g., through Kong's proxy-timeout plugin or other health checks) to swiftly detect and isolate unhealthy backend services.
6. Connection Timeouts (proxy_connect_timeout, proxy_send_timeout, proxy_read_timeout):
   • These Nginx-level timeouts control the duration for connecting to upstream services, sending requests, and reading responses.
   • Recommendation: Set these timeouts appropriately. Too long, and clients might wait indefinitely for a failing service. Too short, and legitimate slow requests might be prematurely terminated. Align these with your upstream service's expected response times and client expectations.
   • Example (kong.conf): nginx_proxy_connect_timeout = 5s, nginx_proxy_send_timeout = 15s, nginx_proxy_read_timeout = 15s
7. lua_code_cache:
   • Kong (OpenResty) compiles Lua code into bytecode and caches it.
   • Recommendation: For production, lua_code_cache should always be on (which is the default in Kong) to avoid recompilation overhead on every request. Only disable it for development/debugging.

By systematically applying these Nginx and Kong-specific configuration tunings, you can significantly enhance the throughput, reduce the latency, and improve the overall stability of your api gateway, ensuring it acts as a highly efficient traffic manager for your scalable api infrastructure. This continuous cycle of tuning, testing, and monitoring is key to maintaining peak performance.

Plugin Management and Performance Considerations

Kong's extensible plugin architecture is one of its most compelling features, allowing for dynamic policy enforcement and functionality addition without modifying core api gateway code. However, the power of plugins comes with a performance cost. Each activated plugin inserts itself into the request and/or response lifecycle, adding processing overhead. Effective plugin management is therefore crucial for maintaining optimal Kong performance.

Impact of Various Plugins

Different types of plugins have varying performance footprints:

• Authentication Plugins (e.g., jwt, oauth2, key-auth): These plugins typically perform database lookups or external service calls (e.g., an OAuth provider) to validate credentials. The latency of these lookups directly impacts the api request latency. Caching authentication results (if supported by the plugin or an external cache) can significantly mitigate this.
• Transformation Plugins (e.g., request-transformer, response-transformer): These plugins manipulate request headers, bodies, or query parameters. The complexity of the transformations (e.g., simple header addition vs. complex JSON body manipulation) directly affects CPU usage and latency. Regular expression operations, in particular, can be CPU-intensive.
• Logging Plugins (e.g., file-log, http-log, syslog): These capture request/response data and send it to various destinations. Asynchronous logging (if available) is generally preferred to avoid blocking the request path. High-volume logging can consume significant I/O and network resources if the logging destination is slow or distant.
• Security Plugins (e.g., acl, ip-restriction, bot-detection, WAF integrations): These plugins analyze requests for malicious patterns or enforce access control. While essential for security, complex rule sets or deep packet inspection can add considerable latency and CPU overhead. WAF integrations, especially, often involve external calls or intensive processing.
• Traffic Control Plugins (e.g., rate-limiting, proxy-cache, load-balancing): rate-limiting can involve atomic operations on a backend store (Redis/database) for distributed counting. proxy-cache can speed up responses but adds logic for cache hit/miss and invalidation. load-balancing (beyond basic round-robin) adds decision logic.
• Traffic Monitoring Plugins (e.g., prometheus, datadog): These plugins extract metrics from requests and expose or push them to monitoring systems. They generally have a low overhead if implemented efficiently, but very high cardinality metrics can consume more resources.

Minimizing Plugin Chain Length

The cumulative effect of multiple plugins can lead to significant latency. Every plugin adds processing steps, however small, to the request/response flow. * Principle of Least Privilege: Only enable plugins that are absolutely necessary for a given Service, Route, or Consumer. Avoid enabling plugins globally if they are only needed for a subset of your api traffic. * Consolidate Functionality: If multiple plugins perform similar or related tasks, investigate if a single, more efficient custom plugin or an external service could consolidate that functionality. * Review Regularly: Periodically review your enabled plugins. Are all of them still required? Are they configured optimally? Remove any unused or redundant plugins.

Custom Plugin Development Best Practices (Lua Performance)

For specific requirements not met by existing plugins, custom Lua plugins can be developed. When writing custom plugins, performance should be a primary concern:

• LuaJIT Optimization: Kong runs on OpenResty, which uses LuaJIT (Just-In-Time compiler). Write clean, idiomatic Lua code to allow LuaJIT to optimize it effectively. Avoid constructs that prevent JIT compilation (e.g., extensive use of lua_pcall, xpcall, or debug library functions in hot paths).
• Minimize Blocking Operations: Avoid blocking I/O within a Lua plugin. Use OpenResty's non-blocking ngx.socket.tcp or ngx.req.socket for network operations. Synchronous database calls within a plugin will block the Nginx worker process, severely impacting concurrency and throughput.
• Efficient Data Structures: Use Lua tables and standard library functions efficiently. Avoid creating excessive temporary tables or strings in hot paths.
• Caching within Plugins: If a plugin performs repeated calculations or lookups (e.g., configuration from an external service), implement internal caching mechanisms (e.g., Lua shared dict or standard Lua tables) to reduce redundant work.
• Offload Heavy Processing: If a plugin's logic is computationally very intensive (e.g., complex image processing, advanced machine learning inference), consider offloading this work to an asynchronous backend service. The plugin would then simply enqueue the request and potentially return an immediate response, allowing the api gateway to remain performant.
• Error Handling: Implement robust error handling. Uncaught errors in Lua plugins can be costly in terms of performance and stability.
• Testing: Rigorously test custom plugins under load to identify performance bottlenecks before deploying to production.

When and How to Offload Functionality Outside Kong

While plugins offer convenience, some functionalities are better handled outside the api gateway for maximum performance and scalability.

• Heavy Logging: For very high-volume, detailed logging, consider offloading log collection directly from backend services (or using a sidecar/agent pattern) to a dedicated logging infrastructure (e.g., Kafka, Logstash) rather than relying on Kong plugins to do all the heavy lifting of sending logs. Kong can still capture critical access logs, but granular application logs are often better handled closer to the source.
• Complex Business Logic/Transformations: If an api requires intricate data transformations, complex business rule evaluations, or extensive data enrichment, it's generally more efficient to implement this logic within a dedicated microservice. Kong's role should be to route to this service, not to execute the complex logic itself.
• Asynchronous Processing: For long-running tasks that don't require an immediate synchronous api response, use Kong to trigger an asynchronous job (e.g., sending a message to a message queue like RabbitMQ or Kafka) and return an immediate 202 Accepted response. The heavy lifting is then done by workers external to the api gateway.
• WAF (Web Application Firewall): While some basic WAF-like rules can be implemented via Kong plugins, for enterprise-grade WAF capabilities with advanced threat intelligence and real-time protection, a dedicated WAF solution (hardware, software, or cloud service) deployed in front of Kong is often superior in terms of both performance and security effectiveness.
• Centralized Identity and Access Management (IAM): For complex user management, role-based access control, and token issuance, leveraging a dedicated IAM solution (e.g., Keycloak, Auth0, Okta) and integrating Kong with it (e.g., via openid-connect plugin) is more scalable and secure than trying to implement all IAM logic within Kong plugins.

By carefully considering the performance implications of each plugin, minimizing their usage, developing custom plugins with performance in mind, and knowing when to offload functionality, you can ensure that Kong remains a high-performance api gateway rather than becoming a bottleneck for your scalable api ecosystem.

APIPark is a high-performance AI gateway that allows you to securely access the most comprehensive LLM APIs globally on the APIPark platform, including OpenAI, Anthropic, Mistral, Llama2, Google Gemini, and more.Try APIPark now! 👇👇👇

Monitoring and Observability for Proactive Performance Management

Mastering Kong performance is not a one-time configuration exercise; it's an ongoing process that heavily relies on robust monitoring and observability. Without clear visibility into your api gateway's operational health and performance metrics, you're essentially operating blind, unable to identify bottlenecks, react to issues, or make informed optimization decisions. Proactive monitoring transforms reactive troubleshooting into preventive maintenance, ensuring your api infrastructure remains resilient and performant.

Key Metrics to Monitor

A comprehensive monitoring strategy for Kong should encompass several categories of metrics:

1. System-level Metrics (Kong Host/Container):
   • CPU Utilization: High CPU usage can indicate an overworked Kong instance, too many active plugins, or inefficient Lua code. Monitor per-core usage.
   • Memory Usage: Excessive memory consumption can lead to swapping (if not properly configured) or out-of-memory errors. Track heap usage for JVM-based Control Plane components (if applicable in hybrid mode) and overall process memory.
   • Network I/O: Monitor incoming and outgoing network traffic, packet rates, and network errors. High network I/O is expected, but persistent errors or unexpected drops can indicate network issues or bottlenecks upstream/downstream of the api gateway.
   • Disk I/O: Crucial for the database. Monitor read/write operations per second, latency, and queue depth. High disk I/O latency on the database server is a common performance killer.
   • Open File Descriptors: Kong (Nginx) uses file descriptors for connections. Ensure the OS ulimit is sufficient; nearing the limit can lead to connection failures.
2. Kong-Specific Metrics (Data Plane):
   • Latency:
     • Total Latency: End-to-end time for a request.
     • Kong Latency (kong_latency): Time spent processing the request within Kong (plugins, routing, etc.). This is a critical metric for Kong's efficiency.
     • Upstream Latency (upstream_latency): Time spent waiting for the backend service to respond. This helps pinpoint if the bottleneck is Kong or the backend.
   • Throughput (Requests Per Second - RPS): The total number of api requests processed by Kong. This measures the api gateway's capacity.
   • Error Rates:
     • HTTP 4xx Errors: Client-side errors (e.g., bad requests, unauthorized).
     • HTTP 5xx Errors: Server-side errors (e.g., internal server error, upstream service unavailable). High 5xx rates indicate problems with Kong or backend services.
   • Connection Metrics: Active connections, dropped connections, connections refused.
   • Health Checks: Status of upstream targets (healthy/unhealthy).
   • Cache Hit/Miss Rates: If using response caching, monitor these to ensure the cache is effective.
3. Database Metrics:
   • Connection Count: Number of active database connections from Kong.
   • Query Latency: Average and percentile latency for SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE operations.
   • Cache Hit Ratio: For PostgreSQL, shared_buffers hit ratio. For Cassandra, key/row cache hit ratios. Low ratios indicate inefficient caching and more disk I/O.
   • Replication Lag: For clustered databases, monitor the lag between primary and replica nodes.
   • Table Bloat (PostgreSQL): Track table and index bloat to ensure autovacuum is working effectively.
   • Garbage Collection (Cassandra): Monitor GC pauses and frequency.

Tools for Monitoring Kong

A combination of tools is typically used to achieve comprehensive observability:

• Prometheus: A powerful open-source monitoring system with a time-series database. Kong provides a Prometheus plugin that exposes metrics in a format Prometheus can scrape.
• Grafana: An open-source analytics and visualization platform. Grafana is commonly used with Prometheus to create rich dashboards that visualize Kong's performance metrics in real-time.
• ELK Stack (Elasticsearch, Logstash, Kibana): For centralized logging. Kong's logging plugins (e.g., http-log, tcp-log) can send access logs to Logstash, which then indexes them into Elasticsearch, allowing for powerful searching and analysis in Kibana. This helps in debugging issues and understanding api usage patterns.
• APM (Application Performance Monitoring) Tools: Tools like Datadog, New Relic, Dynatrace, or AppDynamics can provide deeper insights into the entire transaction flow, tracing requests from the client, through Kong, and into backend services. Kong offers plugins or integrations for some of these.
• Distributed Tracing (OpenTracing/OpenTelemetry): Implementing distributed tracing allows you to visualize the path of a single request across multiple services, including Kong. This is invaluable for pinpointing exactly where latency is introduced in a complex microservices architecture. Kong can be instrumented to emit trace spans.

Alerting Strategies

Monitoring without alerting is incomplete. Establish clear thresholds for key metrics and configure alerts to notify relevant teams when these thresholds are breached.

• Critical Alerts: For immediate issues requiring urgent attention (e.g., Kong nodes down, high 5xx error rates, database connection failures, critical latency spikes).
• Warning Alerts: For metrics approaching critical thresholds or indicating potential future problems (e.g., CPU utilization consistently above 70%, high latency on specific api calls, disk space getting low).
• Trends and Baselines: Understand normal behavior and baseline performance. Alerts should differentiate between expected fluctuations and genuine anomalies. Machine learning-driven anomaly detection can be very powerful here.
• Communication Channels: Configure alerts to be sent to appropriate channels (e.g., PagerDuty, Slack, email) to ensure rapid response.

Integrating with AI/ML Workloads (and APIPark)

The rise of artificial intelligence and machine learning has introduced a new dimension to api management. Integrating AI models into applications often relies on exposing these models as APIs, requiring a robust api gateway to manage access, authentication, and traffic. These AI apis can have unique performance characteristics, such as variable response times, high computational demands, and sensitive data handling requirements.

For organizations specifically dealing with AI services, an advanced api gateway like APIPark can offer specialized capabilities, streamlining the integration and management of diverse AI models while ensuring robust performance and security for these complex api interactions. APIPark simplifies the invocation of 100+ AI models through a unified API format, encapsulating complex prompts into simple REST APIs, and providing end-to-end API lifecycle management. Its ability to achieve over 20,000 TPS with modest resources and support cluster deployment demonstrates a performance profile rivaling traditional high-performance proxies like Nginx, making it exceptionally well-suited for high-throughput AI workloads. Detailed API call logging and powerful data analysis features within APIPark further enhance observability, allowing businesses to proactively identify and address performance trends and potential issues specific to their AI apis, ensuring system stability and data security in these advanced environments.

By implementing a comprehensive monitoring and observability strategy, coupled with tools that provide deep insights into both traditional and specialized api workloads (like those managed by APIPark), you can ensure proactive performance management. This continuous feedback loop is essential for maintaining a high-performing, scalable, and resilient api gateway that can adapt to the evolving demands of your digital landscape.

Scalability Patterns with Kong

Achieving true scalability with Kong means designing your api gateway infrastructure to gracefully handle increasing api traffic, expand capacity on demand, and maintain consistent performance even under peak loads. This involves strategic deployment patterns and leveraging modern cloud-native capabilities.

Horizontal Scaling of Kong Data Plane

The most fundamental scalability pattern for Kong is horizontal scaling of its Data Plane. As established, Data Plane nodes are stateless with respect to their runtime configuration and primarily responsible for processing api traffic.

• Concept: When api traffic increases, simply add more Kong Data Plane nodes. An external load balancer (e.g., Nginx, HAProxy, AWS ELB/ALB, Google Cloud Load Balancer, Azure Load Balancer) distributes incoming client requests across these identical nodes.
• Benefits:
  • Linear Scalability: Each additional Data Plane node contributes to the overall api gateway capacity, allowing for near-linear scaling of throughput.
  • High Availability: Distributes traffic across multiple nodes, eliminating single points of failure for api processing. If one node fails, traffic is redirected to healthy nodes.
  • Resource Isolation: Each node has its own set of CPU, memory, and network resources, preventing resource contention that would occur in a vertical scaling scenario.
• Considerations:
  • Database Load: While Data Plane nodes don't write frequently to the database, they do read configuration. With many Data Plane nodes, the cumulative read load on the database can become a bottleneck. This is where Kong's Hybrid Mode shines, as Data Plane nodes connect to the Control Plane (which caches configurations) instead of directly to the database.
  • External Load Balancer: The load balancer itself must be scalable and performant. It should have appropriate health checks configured to quickly remove unhealthy Kong nodes from the rotation.
  • Network Latency: Ensure Data Plane nodes are geographically close to their intended clients and backend services to minimize network latency.

Autoscaling in Kubernetes Environments

For deployments utilizing Kubernetes, autoscaling Kong Data Plane nodes becomes significantly more automated and elastic.

• Horizontal Pod Autoscaler (HPA): Kubernetes' HPA can automatically adjust the number of Kong Data Plane pods (instances) in a Deployment or ReplicaSet based on observed CPU utilization, memory usage, or custom metrics.
  • CPU/Memory Based: A common strategy is to scale pods up when average CPU utilization exceeds a defined threshold (e.g., 70%) and scale down when it falls below another (e.g., 50%).
  • Custom Metrics: For more sophisticated scaling, HPA can leverage custom metrics, such as requests-per-second from Prometheus or kong_latency. This allows scaling to directly respond to api traffic patterns rather than just resource consumption.
• Cluster Autoscaler: Beyond HPA, a Cluster Autoscaler can automatically add or remove nodes (VMs) in your Kubernetes cluster itself, ensuring that there is always enough underlying infrastructure to run your Kong pods as they scale up and down.
• Benefits:
  • Elasticity: Dynamically adapts to fluctuating api traffic patterns, optimizing resource utilization and cost.
  • Reduced Manual Intervention: Automates the scaling process, reducing operational burden.
  • Cost Efficiency: Scales down during off-peak hours, saving cloud infrastructure costs.
• Considerations:
  • Warm-up Time: New Kong pods might need time to initialize and fetch configurations. Factor this into scaling policies (e.g., scale up sooner, scale down slower).
  • "Thundering Herd" Problem: Rapid scaling down followed by a sudden spike can overwhelm the remaining pods while new ones are spinning up.
  • Metrics Accuracy: Ensure the metrics used for HPA are accurate and represent the true load on Kong.

Geographical Distribution and Multi-region Deployments

For global applications or those requiring extreme resilience, distributing Kong Data Plane instances across multiple geographical regions or data centers is a critical scalability and high-availability pattern.

• Concept: Deploy independent sets of Kong Data Plane nodes (and potentially Control Plane/database instances, depending on the strategy) in different geographic regions. A Global Server Load Balancer (GSLB) or DNS-based routing directs clients to the closest or healthiest Kong instance.
• Benefits:
  • Reduced Latency: Clients connect to the nearest api gateway, significantly reducing network latency.
  • Disaster Recovery: If one entire region fails, traffic can be redirected to another operational region, ensuring continuous api availability.
  • Improved Compliance: Data sovereignty requirements can be met by keeping certain api traffic within specific geographical boundaries.
• Considerations:
  • Configuration Synchronization: If separate Control Planes are used per region, configuration synchronization becomes a challenge. Kong's Hybrid Mode can simplify this by having a central Control Plane (or a globally replicated one) that Data Plane nodes in various regions connect to.
  • Data Consistency: For stateful data (e.g., rate limits using Redis), ensure the shared state is either globally replicated, eventually consistent, or partitioned per region.
  • Complexity: Multi-region deployments introduce significant operational and architectural complexity.

Leveraging CDN/Edge Caching in Front of Kong

For apis that serve static or semi-static content, placing a Content Delivery Network (CDN) or edge caching solution in front of Kong can offload a tremendous amount of traffic from the api gateway and backend services.

• Concept: The CDN caches api responses at its edge locations, close to end-users. Subsequent requests for cached content are served directly by the CDN, bypassing Kong entirely.
• Benefits:
  • Massive Scalability: CDNs are designed to handle immense traffic volumes.
  • Reduced Latency: Content is served from the nearest edge location.
  • Reduced Load: Kong and backend services only handle cache misses or dynamic requests, freeing up their resources.
  • DDoS Protection: CDNs often include built-in DDoS mitigation capabilities.
• Considerations:
  • Cache Invalidation: Implementing an effective cache invalidation strategy is crucial to ensure clients receive up-to-date information.
  • Authentication: For authenticated apis, the CDN might need to pass through authentication headers to Kong, or only cache public endpoints.
  • Cost: CDN services come with associated costs, usually based on data transfer.

By strategically combining these scalability patterns—horizontal scaling, autoscaling, geographical distribution, and edge caching—organizations can build an api gateway infrastructure with Kong that is not only robust and highly available but also capable of scaling to meet the most demanding api traffic patterns, providing a seamless and high-performance experience for all api consumers.

Security Best Practices and Their Performance Footprint

While performance and scalability are paramount, security cannot be an afterthought in api gateway management. Kong, as the entry point to your api ecosystem, plays a pivotal role in enforcing security policies. However, implementing robust security measures often introduces computational overhead, impacting performance. The key is to balance security effectiveness with minimal performance degradation.

TLS/SSL Termination at the API Gateway

Terminating TLS/SSL connections at the api gateway is a standard and recommended practice.

• Concept: Instead of backend services handling TLS, Kong decrypts incoming encrypted requests, passes them to backend services (optionally re-encrypting for mutual TLS), and encrypts responses before sending them back to the client.
• Security Benefits:
  • Centralized Certificate Management: Simplifies certificate lifecycle management for all apis.
  • Backend Offloading: Frees backend services from the CPU-intensive task of encryption/decryption.
  • Inspection: Allows Kong to inspect (and apply policies to) the decrypted request content before forwarding, which is critical for WAF, logging, and other plugins.
• Performance Footprint:
  • CPU Intensive: TLS handshake and encryption/decryption operations are CPU-intensive. This is often the primary reason for CPU utilization in Kong.
  • Latency: The handshake adds a slight overhead to the initial connection.
• Mitigation:
  • Dedicated Hardware/VMs: Allocate sufficient CPU resources to Kong nodes.
  • SSL Session Caching: As discussed in configuration tuning, enable ssl_session_cache to reduce handshake overhead for returning clients.
  • HTTP/2: Use HTTP/2 to multiplex requests over a single TLS connection, reducing the number of handshakes.
  • Modern Ciphers: Prioritize fast, hardware-accelerated, and secure cipher suites.
  • Ephemeral Diffie-Hellman (DHE) Parameters: Ensure proper ssl_dhparam configuration for forward secrecy without excessively large prime sizes that can slow down handshakes.

JWT Validation, OAuth2, and Key Authentication

Kong provides plugins for various authentication mechanisms, all of which add processing overhead.

• jwt (JSON Web Token): Validates the signature and claims of JWTs.
  • Performance Impact: Cryptographic signature verification (e.g., RSA, ECDSA) is CPU-intensive. If not cached, repeated public key fetching can add latency.
  • Mitigation: Configure the plugin to cache public keys or JWKS (JSON Web Key Set) endpoints to reduce repeated network calls. Use efficient signature algorithms.
• oauth2: Integrates with OAuth 2.0 providers for token validation.
  • Performance Impact: Typically involves an introspection call to the OAuth provider's token validation endpoint for each request, which adds network latency and depends on the provider's performance.
  • Mitigation: Implement token caching in Kong or in front of Kong (e.g., using Redis) for a short duration. Ensure the OAuth provider endpoint is fast and reliable.
• key-auth: Validates API keys against Kong's database or an external datastore.
  • Performance Impact: Database/datastore lookup for each request.
  • Mitigation: Ensure the database is well-optimized (as discussed). Utilize caching where possible to reduce repeated lookups.

WAF Integration (Web Application Firewall)

A WAF is crucial for protecting apis from common web exploits (SQL injection, XSS, etc.).

• Concept: A WAF inspects HTTP traffic for malicious patterns based on a set of rules.
• Performance Footprint:
  • CPU Intensive: Deep packet inspection, pattern matching, and rule evaluation are computationally heavy.
  • Latency: Each request must pass through the WAF's inspection engine.
  • False Positives: Poorly tuned WAF rules can block legitimate traffic, leading to operational overhead.
• Mitigation:
  • Dedicated WAF Solution: For high-volume traffic, consider deploying a dedicated WAF solution (hardware, virtual appliance, or cloud-based) in front of Kong. This offloads the heavy processing from Kong.
  • Targeted Rules: Apply WAF rules specifically to apis that require protection, rather than globally if not needed.
  • Performance Tuning: Work with your WAF vendor or solution provider to tune rule sets for optimal performance and minimal false positives.

DDoS Protection

Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks aim to overwhelm your api gateway or backend services.

• Concept: Identify and mitigate malicious traffic attempting to flood your api infrastructure.
• Performance Footprint:
  • Rate Limiting: Kong's rate-limiting plugin can help, but it consumes resources for counting and storage. Under a severe DDoS, Kong itself can be overwhelmed before rate limits effectively kick in.
  • Increased Resource Consumption: Even if traffic is legitimate, an unusually high volume requires more CPU, memory, and network resources.
• Mitigation:
  • Edge Protection: The most effective DDoS protection is typically deployed at the network edge, in front of your api gateway. Cloud providers (AWS Shield, Cloudflare, Azure DDoS Protection) offer specialized DDoS mitigation services designed to absorb massive attack volumes.
  • Network Firewalls/ACLs: Configure network access control lists (ACLs) to block known malicious IPs or ranges.
  • Intrusion Detection/Prevention Systems (IDS/IPS): Can identify and block suspicious traffic patterns.
  • Traffic Scrubbing: Specialized services can analyze traffic, filter out malicious requests, and forward only legitimate ones.

How Security Measures Add Overhead and How to Mitigate It

Every security measure, from TLS encryption to authentication and WAF, adds a layer of processing and potentially network calls (to databases or external providers) to each api request. This cumulative overhead can significantly increase latency and reduce throughput.

General Mitigation Strategies:

• Resource Allocation: Ensure Kong nodes have ample CPU and memory to handle the increased load from security plugins.
• Caching: Implement caching wherever possible (TLS sessions, authentication tokens, DNS lookups, API responses) to reduce repeated computational work or network calls.
• Asynchronous Processing: For non-critical security-related tasks (e.g., extensive security logging, anomaly detection), consider performing them asynchronously or offloading them to external services.
• Profiling and Benchmarking: Continuously profile and benchmark your Kong instances with security plugins enabled to understand their exact performance impact. This helps in identifying bottlenecks and making informed decisions about which security measures to apply where.
• Layered Security: Instead of relying on a single layer, implement security at multiple points (network edge, api gateway, backend services) to distribute the workload and provide defense-in-depth. Not every security measure needs to be performed by Kong.
• Minimalism: Only apply the security plugins and policies that are absolutely necessary for a given api or route, avoiding unnecessary overhead.

By carefully planning your security architecture, understanding the performance implications of each component, and leveraging optimization and offloading strategies, you can maintain a highly secure api gateway with Kong without compromising on the essential performance and scalability required for modern api ecosystems. It's a continuous trade-off that requires careful monitoring and adjustment.

Performance Testing and Benchmarking

The true measure of your Kong optimization efforts lies in quantifiable results. Performance testing and benchmarking are indispensable practices for understanding the real-world capabilities of your api gateway, identifying bottlenecks, and validating the impact of configuration changes. Without rigorous testing, all optimization efforts are based on assumptions, not data.

Importance of Load Testing

Load testing simulates anticipated user traffic to evaluate system behavior under various stress levels. For an api gateway, load testing provides critical insights into:

• Maximum Throughput: How many api requests per second (RPS) Kong can sustain before performance degrades significantly or errors occur.
• Latency Under Load: How api response times increase as concurrency and throughput rise. This helps establish performance SLOs (Service Level Objectives).
• Resource Utilization: CPU, memory, network I/O, and disk I/O of Kong nodes and the backend database under stress. This identifies resource bottlenecks.
• Scalability Limits: At what point Kong (or its dependencies, like the database) stops scaling linearly and becomes a bottleneck.
• Stability and Reliability: How Kong performs over extended periods of high load, looking for memory leaks, connection exhaustion, or unexpected failures.
• Impact of Changes: Quantifying the performance improvement (or regression) resulting from configuration changes, plugin additions, or infrastructure upgrades.

Tools for Load Testing Kong

A variety of open-source and commercial tools are available for performance testing. Choose a tool that supports HTTP/S protocols, can simulate realistic api request patterns, and provides detailed reporting.

• JMeter: A very popular, feature-rich, open-source tool. It's highly configurable, supports various protocols, and can simulate complex scenarios with scripting. It can be run in distributed mode to generate very high load.
  • Pros: Highly flexible, extensive features, large community, good for complex test plans.
  • Cons: Can be resource-intensive for the test controller, requires a bit of a learning curve.
• k6: A modern, developer-centric, open-source load testing tool written in Go and scriptable with JavaScript. It's designed for performance and ease of use, especially in CI/CD pipelines.
  • Pros: High performance, easy to integrate into development workflows, clean JavaScript API, good reporting.
  • Cons: Less mature plugin ecosystem than JMeter for highly specific protocols, limited GUI.
• Locust: An open-source, Python-based load testing tool. Test scripts are written in Python, allowing for powerful and flexible test scenario definition.
  • Pros: Highly programmable (Python), easy to understand for developers, distributed testing capabilities.
  • Cons: Python interpreter overhead can be a factor for extremely high RPS from a single generator, though it scales well horizontally.
• wrk: A simple, high-performance HTTP benchmarking tool written in C. It's excellent for generating raw, maximum-throughput requests from a single machine.
  • Pros: Extremely fast, minimal overhead, great for quick stress tests.
  • Cons: Limited features for complex scenarios, no native reporting beyond basic stats, not ideal for simulating realistic user behavior.

Defining Realistic Test Scenarios

The effectiveness of performance testing hinges on the realism of your test scenarios.

• Identify Critical APIs: Focus on apis that are most frequently called, have strict performance SLOs, or consume significant backend resources.
• Mimic Production Traffic Patterns:
  • Request Distribution: Analyze production api logs to understand the distribution of api calls across different endpoints. Ensure your test traffic mirrors this.
  • Payload Sizes: Use realistic request and response payload sizes. Larger payloads increase network I/O and processing time.
  • Authentication: Include authentication (e.g., JWT, API keys) in your test scenarios, as it adds overhead.
  • Concurrency: Simulate the number of concurrent users or client connections you expect at peak load.
  • Ramp-up/Ramp-down: Gradually increase load to observe performance degradation points, and then sustain peak load for a duration to check stability.
• Include Plugin Chains: Ensure your test scenarios exercise the same plugin configurations (authentication, rate-limiting, transformations, logging) as your production environment.
• Error Handling: Test how Kong responds to backend service failures, timeouts, and unexpected errors.
• Data Variety: Use a diverse set of test data to prevent caching from skewing results (unless testing cache performance).

Interpreting Results and Identifying Bottlenecks

After running tests, careful analysis of the results is crucial.

1. Baseline Comparison: Always establish a baseline (e.g., api gateway under no load, or previous test runs) to measure improvements or regressions.
2. Key Metrics Analysis:
   • Throughput vs. Latency: Plot RPS against average/p95/p99 latency. As RPS increases, latency will typically rise. Identify the point where latency becomes unacceptable.
   • Error Rate: A sudden spike in error rates often indicates resource exhaustion (e.g., connection limits, CPU saturation).
   • Resource Utilization: Correlate performance metrics with system resources (CPU, memory, disk I/O, network). If CPU is 100% at the bottleneck, it's a CPU bound system. If memory is exhausted, it's memory bound. If database queries are slow, the database is the bottleneck.
3. Kong-specific Metrics:
   • Monitor kong_latency and upstream_latency (from Kong's Prometheus plugin) to determine if the bottleneck is within Kong itself or in the backend services.
   • Check plugin-specific metrics if available.
4. Log Analysis: Review Kong's error logs, access logs, and database logs for any unusual entries, errors, or warnings during the test.
5. Distributed Tracing: If implemented, tracing tools can visualize the entire request path, pinpointing the exact component or plugin causing delays.
6. Iterative Process: Performance testing is an iterative cycle. Run tests, analyze results, identify bottlenecks, implement optimizations, and then repeat the testing to validate the changes.

By adopting a disciplined approach to performance testing and benchmarking, you can gain a profound understanding of your Kong api gateway's capabilities and continuously refine its configuration to meet the demanding performance requirements of your scalable api ecosystem. This data-driven approach is the cornerstone of proactive performance management.

Case Studies/Real-world Scenarios (Conceptual)

While specific company names and detailed architectures remain confidential, we can conceptualize common real-world performance challenges encountered with Kong and their effective solutions. These scenarios highlight the practical application of the optimization strategies discussed.

Scenario 1: High Traffic Spikes Overwhelming the API Gateway

Challenge: An e-commerce platform experienced intermittent but severe service degradation during flash sales or promotional events. api requests to their product catalog and checkout services, routed through Kong, would see latency jump from milliseconds to several seconds, often leading to 504 Gateway Timeout errors. Monitoring showed Kong's CPU spiking to 100% and high upstream_latency.

Analysis: * CPU Spike: Indicated Kong nodes were CPU-bound. Further investigation revealed a chain of several CPU-intensive plugins (e.g., complex request-transformer for header manipulation, jwt validation with expensive cryptographic algorithms, and http-log plugin sending detailed logs synchronously). * High upstream_latency: While Kong was busy, it also showed that backend services were struggling. This suggested a cascading effect: slow Kong aggravated backend load, or vice versa. * Flash Sale Pattern: The traffic spikes were predictable but intense, exceeding the api gateway's static capacity.

Solution & Outcome: 1. Horizontal Scaling and Autoscaling: The Kong Data Plane was deployed on Kubernetes in Hybrid Mode, with Horizontal Pod Autoscaling (HPA) configured to scale Kong pods based on CPU utilization and requests-per-second metrics. This allowed Kong to dynamically add capacity before critical thresholds were met. 2. Plugin Optimization: * The complex request-transformer logic was reviewed. Simpler transformations were retained, while very complex ones were offloaded to a dedicated transformation microservice, or the backend services were refactored to accept a simpler request format. * The jwt plugin was configured with a JWKS endpoint for public key caching, significantly reducing repeated fetches and CPU for signature verification. * The http-log plugin was configured for asynchronous logging, sending logs to a Kafka queue instead of blocking the request path waiting for an HTTP endpoint response. 3. Nginx Tuning: worker_processes was set to auto, nginx_keepalive_timeout and nginx_worker_connections were increased to handle more concurrent client connections efficiently. 4. Backend Optimization: Backend services were also scaled horizontally and optimized to handle the increased load, resolving the upstream_latency issue.

Outcome: During subsequent flash sales, Kong nodes scaled smoothly, CPU utilization remained within acceptable limits, and api latency stayed consistently low, even under significantly higher traffic volumes. The api gateway became resilient to traffic spikes.

Scenario 2: Database Bottlenecks Impacting Kong Configuration Updates and Startup

Challenge: A fintech company using Kong with PostgreSQL experienced slow Kong node startup times (several minutes) and noticeable delays when applying configuration changes through the Admin API. Monitoring showed high I/O wait on the PostgreSQL server and frequent database connection issues from Kong nodes.

Analysis: * Slow Startup/Config Updates: Kong Data Plane nodes fetch their configuration from the database during startup and periodically. Slow database response directly translates to slow config loading. * High I/O Wait: Indicated the database was bottlenecked on disk I/O, likely due to slow storage or inefficient query patterns. * Connection Issues: Pointed to either max_connections being too low or a lack of connection pooling.

Solution & Outcome: 1. Database Hardware Upgrade: The PostgreSQL database was migrated to an instance with NVMe SSD storage, drastically improving disk I/O performance. 2. Connection Pooling with PgBouncer: A PgBouncer instance was deployed between the Kong Data Plane nodes and the PostgreSQL database. This allowed Kong's many Data Plane nodes to share a smaller, optimized pool of database connections, reducing database overhead and connection storms. 3. PostgreSQL Tuning: * shared_buffers and effective_cache_size were increased to leverage more RAM for data caching. * autovacuum settings were made more aggressive to ensure dead tuples were reclaimed quickly and statistics were up-to-date, preventing table bloat and slow queries. * max_connections was optimized to align with PgBouncer's pool size. 4. Hybrid Mode Adoption: The company transitioned to Kong's Hybrid Mode, which further reduced direct database access from Data Plane nodes, as they now fetch configuration from the Control Plane.

Outcome: Kong node startup times were reduced from minutes to seconds. Configuration changes applied almost instantly, and database performance metrics showed healthy CPU, I/O, and connection counts, even during periods of heavy api traffic. The api gateway became more responsive and resilient to operational changes.

Scenario 3: Plugin-Induced Latency for High-Throughput Microservices

Challenge: A gaming company's backend microservices, exposed through Kong, needed to handle millions of concurrent user sessions. While individual microservices were highly optimized, the api latency experienced by clients was higher than expected. Profiling revealed significant time spent within Kong, especially for specific routes.

Analysis: * High kong_latency for specific routes: Indicated that the bottleneck was within Kong itself, not the backend services. * Route-specific plugins: Upon inspection, routes with higher latency had more plugins attached, including a custom Lua plugin that performed extensive regex-based URL rewriting and a response-transformer plugin doing complex JSON body manipulation. * Inefficient Custom Plugin: The custom Lua plugin was found to be performing blocking I/O calls to an external service for some metadata, further exacerbating latency.

Solution & Outcome: 1. Plugin Minimization & Order: Unnecessary plugins were removed from critical high-throughput routes. The order of remaining plugins was optimized, placing lightweight plugins or those that could terminate requests earlier in the chain. 2. Custom Plugin Refactoring: * The custom Lua plugin was refactored to use OpenResty's non-blocking I/O primitives for external service calls. * A Lua shared dict was implemented within the plugin to cache frequently accessed metadata, reducing redundant external calls. * The complex regex operations were reviewed and simplified where possible; some were offloaded to the backend service, which could handle them more efficiently. 3. Response Transformation Optimization: The response-transformer plugin was simplified. For very complex response manipulations, a dedicated transformation microservice was introduced, with Kong routing to it. 4. HTTP/2 Enforcement: HTTP/2 was enforced for client connections to Kong, reducing connection overhead and leveraging multiplexing.

Outcome: kong_latency for the critical routes dropped significantly, aligning with target performance SLOs. The api gateway was able to sustain higher throughput without compromising on response times, ensuring a smoother gaming experience for users.

These conceptual case studies underscore that mastering Kong performance is a multifaceted endeavor, requiring a holistic approach that considers infrastructure, database, Kong's internal configuration, plugin choices, and continuous monitoring. Identifying the specific bottleneck through data-driven analysis is the first step, followed by targeted optimizations and iterative validation.

Future Trends in API Gateway Performance

The landscape of api management and api gateway technology is continuously evolving, driven by the demands of cloud-native architectures, edge computing, and emerging technologies like artificial intelligence. Keeping an eye on future trends is essential for ensuring your api gateway infrastructure remains at the forefront of performance and efficiency.

Service Mesh Integration

While api gateways manage North-South traffic (from external clients to internal services), service meshes handle East-West traffic (inter-service communication within a cluster). The clear separation of concerns is blurring, leading to closer integration and potential convergence.

• Performance Implications:
  • Unified Policy Enforcement: Service meshes can take over many functionalities traditionally handled by api gateway plugins (e.g., rate limiting, circuit breakers, authentication, observability for internal services). This could potentially lighten the load on the api gateway, allowing it to focus on edge routing and external security.
  • Reduced Overhead: By pushing policies closer to the services (sidecars), performance might improve for internal communications, leading to a more efficient overall system.
  • Complexity: Managing both an api gateway and a service mesh adds operational complexity, requiring careful thought about where to apply policies to avoid duplication and conflicts.
• Future Direction: api gateways might become specialized edge proxies, focusing on ingress routing, external authentication, DDoS protection, and protocol translation, while the service mesh handles the bulk of internal traffic management and policy enforcement. This allows each component to optimize for its specific domain, potentially enhancing overall system performance and scalability.

eBPF for Network Optimization

Extended Berkeley Packet Filter (eBPF) is a revolutionary technology that allows programs to run in the Linux kernel without changing kernel source code or loading kernel modules. It's increasingly being used for network and security observability and optimization.

• Performance Implications:
  • Kernel-level Optimization: eBPF can enable incredibly efficient packet processing, routing, and filtering directly in the kernel, bypassing user-space overhead.
  • Reduced Latency: By processing network events at a lower level, eBPF can significantly reduce network latency and improve throughput for api traffic.
  • Advanced Load Balancing: eBPF can power highly efficient, intelligent load balancing algorithms that operate at the kernel level, providing superior performance compared to user-space proxies.
  • Enhanced Security: eBPF can implement powerful, low-overhead network security policies and firewall rules.
• Future Direction: Kong (or its underlying Nginx/OpenResty) could leverage eBPF to offload certain network-level tasks, such as advanced traffic steering, connection management, or even some security filtering, directly to the kernel. This would free up CPU cycles in the Nginx worker processes, allowing them to focus more on Lua plugin execution and higher-level api logic, thus boosting the performance of the api gateway.

Serverless API Gateway Functions

The rise of serverless computing platforms (AWS Lambda, Azure Functions, Google Cloud Functions) has led to the concept of serverless api gateway functions.

• Performance Implications:
  • Near-Infinite Scalability: Serverless functions can scale almost instantly from zero to massive concurrency, responding elastically to api traffic bursts without pre-provisioning.
  • Cost Efficiency: You only pay for the compute time consumed, making it cost-effective for variable or unpredictable api workloads.
  • Reduced Operational Overhead: The underlying infrastructure is fully managed by the cloud provider.
• Future Direction: While traditional api gateways like Kong will continue to be vital for complex, stateful, or hybrid cloud environments, simple api endpoints that map directly to serverless functions might bypass a full-fledged api gateway for maximum agility and cost efficiency. Alternatively, Kong could integrate more deeply with serverless platforms, acting as a unified gateway to both containerized microservices and serverless functions, providing consistent policy enforcement across diverse backend compute models. The challenge will be integrating serverless-specific features (like event-driven scaling) with a traditional api gateway's robust policy management.

These trends suggest a future where api gateway performance will be increasingly shaped by advancements at the network edge, within the kernel, and through the elasticity of serverless compute. Kong, with its flexible architecture, is well-positioned to adapt to these changes, potentially integrating with service meshes, leveraging eBPF, and evolving its capabilities to manage the growing complexity and performance demands of modern api ecosystems, continuing its role as a high-performance api gateway at the heart of digital infrastructure.

Conclusion

Mastering Kong performance for scalable APIs is an intricate yet profoundly rewarding endeavor, forming the cornerstone of any robust and future-proof digital infrastructure. As the primary entry point for all client requests, your api gateway is not merely a utility; it is the frontline commander dictating the efficiency, reliability, and responsiveness of your entire api ecosystem. This comprehensive guide has traversed the multifaceted landscape of Kong optimization, from foundational architectural principles to advanced tuning techniques and proactive management strategies.

We began by dissecting Kong's core components—the Data Plane, Control Plane, and Database—understanding how their interplay fundamentally impacts api gateway performance. This led to an exploration of foundational principles, emphasizing the critical importance of robust network topology, adequate server specifications, and the judicious choice and configuration of your backend database. Subsequent deep dives into Kong's deployment strategies, including the highly recommended Hybrid Mode, and its integration with container orchestration platforms like Kubernetes, highlighted paths to achieve elastic scalability and high availability.

A significant portion of our journey focused on the granular aspects of configuration tuning. We detailed how optimizing underlying Nginx parameters, such as worker_processes, keepalive_timeout, and SSL/TLS settings, directly translates to improved throughput and reduced latency. We then delved into Kong-specific configurations, stressing the critical role of intelligent plugin management, efficient caching mechanisms, and judicious load balancing algorithms. The intricate balance between the power of plugins and their inherent performance overhead was meticulously examined, providing best practices for both built-in and custom Lua plugins.

Recognizing that optimization is a continuous process, we underscored the indispensable role of monitoring and observability. Establishing clear metrics, leveraging powerful tools like Prometheus and Grafana, and implementing intelligent alerting strategies were presented as essential for proactive performance management. We also touched upon the specialized needs of modern AI/ML workloads and how a platform like APIPark can offer tailored api gateway solutions, ensuring both performance and streamlined management for these advanced apis. Finally, our exploration of scalability patterns, security best practices, and the imperative of rigorous performance testing and benchmarking provided a holistic framework for building and maintaining a resilient, high-performing api infrastructure.

The journey to an optimally performing Kong api gateway is iterative, demanding continuous vigilance, a data-driven approach, and a willingness to adapt. By diligently applying the principles and strategies outlined in this guide, you can transform your gateway into a formidable engine, capable of handling the most demanding api traffic with unparalleled efficiency, security, and scalability, ultimately empowering your organization to innovate and thrive in an API-first world.

---

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What are the most common bottlenecks for Kong performance in a production environment? The most common bottlenecks typically stem from three areas: insufficient CPU resources on Kong Data Plane nodes (especially with many CPU-intensive plugins or heavy SSL/TLS traffic), a slow or unoptimized backend database (PostgreSQL or Cassandra), and inefficient plugin usage (too many plugins, poorly configured plugins, or custom plugins with blocking I/O). Additionally, an overloaded or misconfigured upstream backend service can appear as a Kong bottleneck due to high upstream_latency.

2. How can I effectively monitor Kong's performance to identify issues proactively? Effective monitoring involves collecting system-level metrics (CPU, memory, network I/O) and Kong-specific metrics. For Kong, use the Prometheus plugin to expose metrics like kong_latency, upstream_latency, requests_per_second, and error rates. Integrate Prometheus with Grafana for intuitive dashboards. For logging, use tools like the ELK stack (Elasticsearch, Logstash, Kibana) to centralize and analyze access and error logs. Distributed tracing (e.g., OpenTelemetry) can provide granular insights into request flows through Kong and backend services. Set up alerts for critical thresholds on these metrics.

3. Is it better to use PostgreSQL or Cassandra as Kong's database for high-performance scenarios? The choice depends on your specific requirements. PostgreSQL is generally easier to set up and manage, offers strong consistency, and performs very well for small to medium-scale Kong deployments, especially with proper tuning (SSD/NVMe, autovacuum, shared_buffers, PgBouncer). For very large, globally distributed, or extreme high-availability Kong deployments where linear scalability and eventual consistency are acceptable tradeoffs, Cassandra is designed to excel. However, Cassandra requires more operational expertise for setup, tuning (GC, compaction, replication factors), and management. For most common use cases, a well-tuned PostgreSQL database with a connection pooler can handle significant load effectively.

4. What is Kong's Hybrid Mode, and how does it improve performance and scalability? Kong's Hybrid Mode decouples the Control Plane (for configuration management) from the Data Plane (for real-time traffic processing). Dedicated Control Plane nodes manage configuration, persisting it to the database, and Data Plane nodes connect to the Control Plane (instead of directly to the database) to fetch their configurations. This significantly improves performance and scalability by: 1. Reducing Database Load: Data Plane nodes no longer directly query the database, offloading connection and read load. 2. Independent Scaling: Control Plane and Data Plane can scale independently based on their specific needs. 3. Enhanced Resilience: Data Plane nodes continue to operate with their last known configuration even if the Control Plane or database becomes temporarily unavailable, ensuring continuous api traffic flow. 4. Improved Security: Data Plane nodes don't require direct database credentials.

5. How do security features like TLS termination and authentication plugins impact Kong's performance, and how can I mitigate this? Security features inherently add computational overhead. TLS termination (encryption/decryption) is CPU-intensive. Authentication plugins (e.g., JWT validation, OAuth2 introspection, API key lookups) involve cryptographic operations or database/network calls. To mitigate the performance impact: * Allocate sufficient CPU resources to your Kong nodes. * Enable SSL session caching to reduce TLS handshake overhead for returning clients. * Prioritize efficient cryptographic algorithms and modern cipher suites. * Implement caching for authentication tokens or public keys to reduce repeated lookups. * Minimize plugin chain length: Only enable necessary security plugins and apply them at the most granular level (e.g., per route). * Offload heavy security tasks (like full WAF protection or DDoS mitigation) to dedicated edge solutions in front of Kong when possible.

🚀You can securely and efficiently call the OpenAI API on APIPark in just two steps:

Step 1: Deploy the APIPark AI gateway in 5 minutes.

APIPark is developed based on Golang, offering strong product performance and low development and maintenance costs. You can deploy APIPark with a single command line.

curl -sSO https://download.apipark.com/install/quick-start.sh; bash quick-start.sh

In my experience, you can see the successful deployment interface within 5 to 10 minutes. Then, you can log in to APIPark using your account.

Step 2: Call the OpenAI API.