I have a Mikrotik router for a University campus network. I have a total bandwidth of 100Mbps. I would like to manage the bandwidth per IP address in an away that if all of the users are connected the bandwidth needs to be equally divided and when only some users have connected the bandwidth needs to be increased to each user. for example, if there are 10 users connected each user should receive 10Mbps and if 5 users are connected 20Mbps needs to be connected. Please let me know which Queue type should be used.
You need a simple queue with PCQ as a queue type. Something like that:
/queue simple
add max-limit=95M/95M name=MyQueue queue=pcq_upload_default/pcq_download_default target=your_ether_interface
Related
Hi I'm creating a xbee network with 1 coordinator and 20 end nodes transmitting data 8 times per second. (Currently i just made one of them talk to the coordinator).
I would like to know how many data packages the coordinator will be able to receive as I'll be transmitting in a high data rate. (20 end index x 8 times per second its 160 data packages per second).
Is that feasible ? Will I face any problems ? What should I be worried with ? For that data rate is there any other protocol I could use?
Thanks
I would say that it isn't feasible. The radio data rate of 802.15.4 networks is 250kbps. Once you're sending that many data packets per second, you'll be getting collisions and retransmissions. It might work if the packets are very small, but you'll still have a lot of overhead for packet headers. If this is a mesh network, you'll be using bandwidth for packet retransmission when a node can't communicate directly with the coordinator.
Is there a reason you need that data frequency? Can the end devices aggregate their data and send a single packet once/second with 8 data samples? Zigbee and 802.15.4 were designed for low data rates and low power.
If you're going to try this out, you'll want to configure the coordinator for at least 230kbps to keep up with the data flow. Do a proof of concept with a single end device (and configure it as a router, since you don't need "sleeping" capability of end devices), and then consider testing with 5 devices sending 4 times as much data (32 packets/second) to see if the coordinator can even keep up with that data flow.
My question concerns the following use case:
Use case actors
User A: The user who sets a broadcast region and views stream with live posts.
User B: The first user who sends a broadcast message from within the broadcast region set by user A.
User C: The second user who sends a broadcast message from within the broadcast region set by user A.
Use case description
User A selects a broadcast region within which boundaries (radius) (s)he wants to receive live broadcast messages.
User A opens the livefeed and requests an initial set of livefeed items.
User B broadcasts a message from within the broadcast region of user A while user A’s livefeed is still open.
A label with 1 new livefeed item appears at the top of User A’s livefeed while it is open.
As user C publishes another livefeed post from within the selected broadcast region from user A, the label counter increments.
User A receives a notification similar to this example of Facebook:
The solution I thought to apply (and which I think Pubnub uses), is to create a topic per geohash.
In my case that would mean that for every user who broadcasted a message, it needs to be published to the geohash-topic, and clients (app / website users) would consume the geohash-topic through a websocket if it fell within the range of the defined area (radius). Ably seems to provide this kind of scalable service using web sockets.
I guess it would simplified be something like this:
So this means that a geohash needs to be extracted from the current location from where the broadcast message is sent. This geohash should have granular scale that is small enough so that the receiving user can set a broadcast region that is more or less accurate. (I.e. the geohash should have enough accuracy if we want to allow users to define a broadcast region within which to receive live messages, which means that one should expect a quite large amount of topics if we decided to scale).
Option 2 would be to create topics for a geohash that has a less specific granularity (covering a larger area), and let clients handle the accuracy based on latlng values that are sent along with the message.
The client would then decide whether or not to drop messages. However, this means more messages are sent (more overhead), and a higher cost.
I don't have experience with this kind of architecture, and question the viability / scalability of this approach.
Could you think of an alternate solution to this question to achieve the desired result or provide more insight on how to solve this kind of problem overall? (I also considered using regular req-res flow, but this means spamming the server, which also doesn't seem like a very good solution).
I actually checked.
Given a region of 161.4 km² (like region Brussels), the division of geohashes by length of the string is as follows:
1 ≤ 5,000km × 5,000km
2 ≤ 1,250km × 625km
3 ≤ 156km × 156km
4 ≤ 39.1km × 19.5km
5 ≤ 4.89km × 4.89km
6 ≤ 1.22km × 0.61km
7 ≤ 153m × 153m
8 ≤ 38.2m × 19.1m
9 ≤ 4.77m × 4.77m
10 ≤ 1.19m × 0.596m
11 ≤ 149mm × 149mm
12 ≤ 37.2mm × 18.6mm
Given that we would allow users to have a possible inaccuracy up to 153m (on the region to which users may want to subscribe to receive local broadcast messages), it would require an amount of topics that is definitely already too large to even only cover the entire region of Brussels.
So I'm still a bit stuck at this level currently.
1. PubNub
PubNub is currently the only service that offers an out of the box geohash pub-sub solution over websockets, but their pricing is extremely high (500 connected devices cost about 49$, 20k devices cost 799$) UPDATE: PubNub has updated price, now with unlimited devices. Website updates coming soon.
Pubnub is working on their pricing model because some of their customers were paying a lot for unexpected spikes in traffic.
However, it will not be a viable solution for a generic broadcasting messaging app that is meant to be open for everybody, and for which traffic is therefore very highly unpredictable.
This is a pity, since this service would have been the perfect solution for us otherwise.
2. Ably
Ably offers a pubsub system to stream data to clients over websockets for custom channels. Channels are created dynamically when a client attaches itself in order to either publish or subscribe to that channel.
The main problem here is that:
If we want high geohash accuracy, we need a high number of channels and hence we have to pay more;
If we go with low geohash accuracy, there will be a lot of redundant messaging:
Let's say that we take a channel that is represented by a geohash of 4 characters, spanning a geographical area of 39.1 x 19.5 km.
Any post that gets sent to that channel, would be multiplexed to everybody within that region who is currently listening.
However, let's say that our app allows for a maximum radius of 10km, and half of the connected users has its setting to a 1km radius.
This means that all posts outside of that 2km radius will be multiplexed to these users unnecessarily, and will just be dropped without having any further use.
We should also take into account the scalability of this approach. For every geohash that either producer or consumer needs, another channel will be created.
It is definitely more expensive to have an app that requires topics based on geohashes worldwide, than an app that requires only theme-based topics.
That is, on world-wide adoption, the number of topics increases dramatically, hence will the price.
Another consideration is that our app requires an additional number of channels:
By geohash and group: Our app allows the possibility to create geolocation based groups (which would be the equivalent of Twitter like #hashtags).
By place
By followed users (premium feature)
There are a few optimistic considerations to this approach despite:
Streaming is only required when the newsfeed is active:
when the user has a browser window open with our website +
when the user is on a mobile device, and actively has the related feed open
Further optimisation can be done, e.g. only start streaming as from 10
to 20 seconds after refresh of the feed
Streaming by place / followed users may have high traffic depending on current activity, but many place channels will be idle as well
A very important note in this regard is how Ably bills its consumers, which can be used to our full advantage:
A channel is opened when any of the following happens:
A message is published on the channel via REST
A realtime client attaches to the channel. The channel remains active for the entire time the client is attached to that channel, so
if you connect to Ably, attach to a channel, and publish a message but
never detach the channel, the channel will remain active for as long
as that connection remains open.
A channel that is open will automatically close when all of the
following conditions apply:
There are no more realtime clients attached to the channel At least
two minutes has passed since the last message was published. We keep
channels alive for two minutes to ensure that we can provide
continuity on the channel as part of our connection state recovery.
As an example, if you have 10,000 users, and at your busiest time of
the month there is a single spike where 500 customers establish a
realtime connection to Ably and each attach to one unique channel and
one global shared channel, the peak number of channels would be the
sum of the 500 unique channels per client and the one global shared
channel i.e. 501 peak channels. If throughout the month each of those
10,000 users connects and attaches to their own unique channel, but
not necessarily at the same time, then this does not affect your peak
channel count as peak channels is the concurrent number of channels
open at any point of time during that month.
Optimistic conclusion
The most important conclusion is that we should consider that this feature may not be as crucial as believe it is for a first version of the app.
Although Twitter, Facebook, etc offer this feature of receiving live updates (and users have grown to expect it), an initial beta of our app on a limited scale can work without, i.e. the user has to refresh in order to receive new updates.
During a first launch of the app, statistics can ba gathered to gain more insight into detailed user behaviour. This will enable us to build more solid infrastructural and financial reflections based on factual data.
Putting aside the question of Ably, Pubnub and a DIY solution, the core of the question is this:
Where is message filtering taking place?
There are three possible solution:
The Pub/Sub service.
The Server (WebSocket connection handler).
Client side (the client's device).
Since this is obviously a mobile oriented approach, client side message filtering is extremely rude, as it increases data consumption by the client while much of the data might be irrelevant.
Client side filtering will also increase battery consumption and will likely result in lower acceptance rates by clients.
This leaves pub/sub filtering (channel names / pattern matching) and server-side filtering.
Pub/Sub channel name filtering
A single pub/sub service serves a number of servers (if not all of them), making it a very expensive resource (relative to the resources we have at hand).
Using channel names to filter messages would be ideal - as long as the filtering is cheap (using exact matches with channel name hash mapping).
However, pattern matching (when subscribing to channels with inexact names, such as "users.*") is very expansive when compared to exact pattern matching.
This means that Pub/Sub channel name filtering can't be used to filter all the messages without overloading the pub/sub system.
Server side filtering
Since a server accepts WebSocket connections and bridges between the WebSocket and the pub/sub service, it's in an ideal position to filter the messages.
However, we don't want the server to process all the messages for all the clients for each connection, as this is an extreme duplication of effort.
Hybrid solution
A classic solution would divide the earth into manageable sections (1 sq. km per section will require 510.1 million unique channel names for full coverage... but I would suggest that the 70% ocean space should be neglected).
Busy sections might be subdivided (NYC might require a section per 250 sq meters rather than 1 sq kilometer).
This allows publishers to publish to exact channel names and subscribers to subscribe to exact channel names.
Publishers might need to publish to more than one channel and subscribers might need to subscribe to more than one channel, depending on their exact location and the grid's borders.
This filtering scheme will filter much, but not all.
The server node will need to look into the message, review it's exact geo-location and filter messages before deciding if they should be sent along the WebSocket connection to the client.
Why the Hybrid Solution?
This allows the system to scale with relative ease.
Since server nodes are (by design) cheaper than the pub/sub service, they could be used to handle the exact location filtering (the heavy work).
At the same time, the strength of the pub/sub system can be used to minimize the server's workload and filter the obvious mis-matches.
Pubnub vs. Ably?
I don't know. I didn't use either of them. I worked with Redis and implemented my own pub/sub solution.
I assume they are both great and it's really up to your needs.
Personally I prefer the DIY approach when it comes to customized or complex situations. IMHO, this seems like it would fall into the DIY category if I were to implement it.
My application under test is a WCF web service whose performance I need to test. there are more than 50000 hardware devices that communicate with the web service on daily basis.
The communication of all the 50000 devices is completed within 5 hours.
Can someone help in derive a scenario for load testing and how many Virtual users should I create because ultimately each device is actually querying the web service. So I can keep 1 virtual user and run it 50000 times or should I create 50000 virtual users or something between both...?
Your load test needs to represent real-life application usage as close as it is possible otherwise it doesn't make sense. So if your application acts as a backend for devices you need to simulate real usage of the backend with this devices.
50 000 devices per 5 hours give 10 000 devices per hour which is about 166 devices per minute.
Good idea would be setting number of threads (virtual users) for the Thread Group to be more or less equal to the number of devices which simultaneously connect to the backend. Once done you should be able to limit JMeter's request rate to 166 requests per minute using Constant Throughput Timer.
You might need to adjust above target throughput value depending on the number of requests which is being made by each individual device.
I don't think its a good practice to create 50000 users.
When you test for large amount of users, there is possibility that it crashes. It depends on
machine power
OS
jvm(32/64 bits)
test plan
One of the solution is you can consider using less users and using loops to do your task.
more answers could be found here
https://sqa.stackexchange.com/questions/17732/maximum-number-of-threads-in-jmeter
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I am developing a P2P application which I am making it scalable to tens of millions of users. I am broadcasting a packet to each of these other peers and expecting a response. Before I go ahead with my coding I wanted to confirm if I can send a packet to 10s of millions of different IP addresses in less than a minute. and if they all respond back then will my application or even my PC be able to handle that many connections and packets in such small time ?
Using TCP and Windows.
Maximum CPU usage allowed : 20%
Internet bandwidth : assume 2Mbps
Application based on C programming using WinSock2
Assume a normal PC with 2 GB Ram, Core 2 Duo, 2.8 GHz
Um, yes you can, but you might need to use UDP. However the responses backc will be a self DoS as well.
Generally applications which need to directly communicate with tens of millions of users within the space of a minute will be based on clusters of servers that have the available internet bandwidth and computational power such that they don't DoS themselves. A P2P application shouldn't require a single host to communicate with that many users, especially not within that short of a time frame.
Ray is correct that, even if you were able to send the message, you will end up DoSing yourself with the response unless you put a lot of varied-length intentional delays in the client programs to space out their responses. He's also correct that you should use UDP if you were to attempt this. I find it very unlikely that your operating system supports maintaining 10,000,000 concurrent TCP connections.
In order to send a notification to tens of millions of hosts from a single host, the original host should notify some small subset of size n of the list of tens of millions of hosts. Each of those hosts would, in turn, notify n more hosts and so on. This would require on the order of n log_n_(total number of hosts) time vs. on the order of the number of hosts time.
If the response message is simply an acknowledgement of the receipt of the original message, a system opposite this can be used for the acknowledgements. Each host can send an ack to the one that sent it the message, then once that host has received all of the acks or a timeout occurs, it sends an ack to the host that sent it the message which includes the information of which hosts have already sent it an ack. This process continues back up the tree until it the combined acks reach the original host. This means you receive on the order of n responses back to the original host, not on the order of tens of millions.
If the response is more than just an ack, then your application is probably not scalable for anything remotely close to the hardware you describe as that's going to be way too much incoming data in too short of a time. Most likely you'll DoS yourself and quite possibly get a nastygram from your ISP.
DNS Round Robin (DRR) permits to do cheap load balancing (distribution is a better term). It has the pro of permitting infinite horizontal scaling. The con is that if one of the web servers goes down, some clients continue to use the broken IP for minutes (min TTL 300s) or more, even if the DNS implements fail-over.
An Hardware Load Balancer (HLB) handles such web server failures transparently but it cannot scale its bandwidth indefinitely. An hot spare is also needed.
A good solution seems to use DRR in front to a group of HLB pairs. Each HLB pair never goes down and therefore DRR never keeps clients down. Plus, when bandwidth isn't enough you can add a new HLB pair to the group.
Problem: DRR moves clients randomly between the HLB pairs and therefore (AFAIK) session stickiness cannot work.
I could just avoid to use session stickiness but it makes better use of caches therefore is something that I want to preserve.
Question: is it possible/exist an HLB implementation where an instance can share its (sessionid,webserver) mapping with other instances?
If this is possible then a client would be routed to the same web server independently by the HLB that routed the request.
Thanks in advance.
Modern load balancers have very high throughput capabilities (gigabit). So unless you're running a huuuuuuuuuuge site (e.g. google), adding bandwidth is not why you'll need a new pair of load balancers, especially since most large sites offload much of their bandwidth to CDNs (Content Delivery Networks) like Akamai. If you're pumping a gigabit of un-CDN-able data through your site and don't already have a global load-balancing strategy, you've got bigger problems than cache affinity. :-)
Instead of bandwidth limits, sites tend to add additional LB pairs for geo-distribution of servers at separate data centers to ensure users spread across the world can talk to a server closest to them.
For that latter scenario, load balancer companies offer geo-location solutions, which (at least until a few years ago which was when I was following this stuff) were based on custom DNS implementations which looked at client IPs and resolved to the load balancer pairs Virtual IP address which is "closest" (in network topology or performance) to the client. These days, CDNs like Akamai also offer global load balancing services (e.g. http://www.akamai.com/html/technology/products/gtm.html). Amazon's EC2 hosting also supports this kind of feature for sites hosted there (see http://aws.amazon.com/elasticloadbalancing/).
Since users tend not to move across continents in the course of a single session, you automatically get affinity (aka "stickiness") with geographic load balancing, assuming your pairs are located in separate data centers.
Keep in mind that geo-location is really hard since you also have to geo-locate your data to ensure your back-end cross-data-center network doesn't get swamped.
I suspect that F5 and other vendors also offer single-datacenter solutions which achieve the same ends, if you're really concerned about the single point of failure of network infrastructure (routers, etc.) inside your datacenter. But router and switch vendors have high-availability solutions which may be more appropriate to address that issue.
Net-net, if I were you I wouldn't worry about multiple pairs of load balancers. Get one pair and, unless you have a lot of money and engineering time to burn, partner with a hoster who's good at keeping their data center network up and running.
That said, if cache affinity is such a big deal for your app that you're thinking about shelling out big $$$ for multiple pairs of load balancers, it may be worth considering some app architecture changes (like using an external caching cluster). Solutions like memcached (for linux) are designed for this scenario. Microsoft also has one coming called "Velocity".
Anyway, hope this is useful info-- it's admittedly been a while since I've been deeply involved in this space (I was part of the team which designed an application load balancing product for a large software vendor) so you might want to double-check my assumptions above with facts you can pull off the web from F5 and other LB vendors.
Ok, this is an ancient question, which I just found through a Google search. But for any future visitors, here is some additional clarifications:
Problem: [DNS Round Robin] moves clients randomly between the HLB pairs and therefore (AFAIK) session stickiness cannot work.
This premise is as best I can tell not accurate. It seems nobody really knows what old browsers might do, but presumably each browser window will stay on the same IP address as long as it's open. Newer operation systems probably obey the "match longest prefix" rule. Thus there shouldn't be much 'flapping', randomly switching from one load balancer IP to another.
However, if you're still worried about users getting randomly reassigned to a new load balancer pair, then a small modification of the classic L3/4 & L7 load balancing setup can help:
Publish DNS Round Robin records that go to Virtual high-availability IPs that are handled by L4 load balancers.
Have the L4 load balancers forward to pairs of L7 load balancers based on the origin IP address, i.e. use consistent hashing based on the end users IP to always route end users to the same L7 load balancer.
Have your L7 load balancers use "sticky sessions" as you want them to.
Essentially this is just a small modification to what Willy Tarreau (the creator of HAProxy) wrote years ago.
thanks for having put things in the right perspective.
I agree with you.
I did some reading and found:
Flickr: http://highscalability.com/flickr-architecture
4 billion queries per day --> about 50000 queries/s
Youtube: http://highscalability.com/youtube-architecture
100 million video views/day --> about 1200 video views/second
PlentyOfFish: http://highscalability.com/plentyoffish-architecture
600 pages/second
200 Mbps used
CDN used
Twitter: http://highscalability.com/scaling-twitter-making-twitter-10000-percent-faster
300 tweets/second
600 req/s
A very top end LB like this can scale up :
200,000 SSL handshakes per second
1 million TCP connections per second
3.2 million HTTP requests per second
36 Gbps of TCP or HTTP throughput
Therefore, you are right a LB could hardly become a bottleneck.
Anyway I found this (old) article http://www.tenereillo.com/GSLBPageOfShame.htm
where it is explained that geo-aware DNS could create availability issues.
Could someone comment on that article?
Thanks,
Valentino
So why not keep it simple and have the DNS server give out a certain IP address (or addresses) based on the origin IP address (i.e. use consistent hashing based on the end users IP to always give end users the same IP address(es)) ?
I'm aware that this only provides a simple and cheap load distribution mechanism.
I have been looking for this, but haven't found a DNS server which implements this (although Bind has some possibilities with views).