I need solution upstream much data every seconds.
200kBytes per seconds via wireless (WiFi) or Ethenet.
I selected MQTT, because It is useful for connections with remote locations where a small code footprint is required and/or network bandwidth is at a premium.
MQTT is better that Socket.io in network bandwidth usage?
Or, MQTT is good solution for upload/publish realtime.
MQTT can be used for charting system same as socket.io(WebSocket)?
Socket.io does several things at once. This answer focuses on your note about the underlying protocol, WebSockets, though of course you could use those without Socket.io.
WebSockets vs. MQTT is an apples-to-baskets comparison, as each can work without the other or together. MQTT can work alone as an alternative to HTTP. WebSockets is an additional protocol on top of HTTP, and can keep a long-running connection open, so that a stream of messages can be sent over a long period without having to set up a new connection for each request. That connection can carry MQTT, or non-MQTT data like JSON objects, and has the benefit of providing a reliable two-way link whose messages arrive in order.
MQTT also has less overhead, for different reasons: it is designed with a publish-subscribe model (Pub-Sub Model) and optimizes for delivering data over narrow, slow, or unreliable connections. Though it omits many of the headers that accompany an HTTP message in favor of a few densely-coded bytes, the real difference is in speed of delivery. A top option for constrained embedded devices, though they are usually sending small messages and trying to conserve data/processing/power.
So they have different strengths, and can even be combined. MQTT-via-WebSockets is a common approach for using MQTT inside a webapp, though plain MQTT is the norm in lower-end devices (which may be hard-pressed to send that much data anyway). I suggest MQTT for sending from device to server, or WebSockets-MQTT for quickly receiving device data in the browser or ensuring the order of messages that are sent at high rates. An important exception would be for streaming - there have only been isolated reports of it over MQTT, while Socket.io reports it as a top feature. The balance will depend on what systems you have on both ends and what sort of charting is involved.
Related
I'm building a Web Application that consumes data pushed from Server.
Each message is JSON and could be large, hundreds of kilobytes, and messages send couple times per minute, and the order doesn't matter.
The Server should be able to persist not yet delivered messages, potentially storing couple of megabytes for client for couple of days, until client won't get online. There's a limit on the storage size for unsent messages, say 20mb per client, and old undelivered messages get deleted when this limit is exceeded.
Server should be able to handle around 1 thousand simultaneous connections. How it could be implemented simply?
Possible Solutions
I was thinking maybe store messages as files on disk and use Browser Pool for 1 sec, to check for new messages and serve it with NGinx or something like that? Is there some configs / modules for NGinx for such use cases?
Or maybe it's better to use MQTT Server or some Message Queue like Rabbit MQ with some Browser Adapter?
Actually, MQTT supports the concept of sessions that persist across client connections, but the client must first connect and request a "non-clean" session. After that, if the client is disconnected, the broker will hold all the QoS=1 or 2 messages destined for that client until it reconnects.
With MQTT v3.x, technically, the server is supposed to hold all the messages for all these disconnected clients forever! Each messages maxes out at a 256MB payload, but the server is supposed to hold all that you give it. This created a big problem for servers that MQTT v5 came in to fix. And most real-world brokers have configurable settings around this.
But MQTT shines if the connections are over unreliable networks (wireless, cell modems, etc) that may drop and reconnect unexpectedly.
If the clients are connected over fairly reliable networks, AMQP with RabbitMQ is considerably more flexible, since clients can create and manage the individual queues. But the neat thing is that you can mix the two protocols using RabbitMQ, as it has an MQTT plugin. So, smaller clients on an unreliable network can connect via MQTT, and other clients can connect via AMQP, and they can all communicate with each other.
MQTT is most likely not what you are looking for. The protocol is meant to be lightweight and as the comments pointed out, the protocol specifies that there may only exist "Control Packets of size up to 268,435,455 (256 MB)" source. Clearly, this is much too small for your use case.
Moreover, if a client isn't connected (and subscribed on that particular topic) at the time of the message being published, the message will never be delivered. EDIT: As #Brits pointed out, this only applies to QoS 0 pubs/subs.
Like JD Allen mentioned, you need a queuing service like Rabbit MQ or AMQ. There are countless other such services/libraries/packages in existence so please investigate more.
If you want to role your own, it might be worth considering using AWS SQS and wrapping some of your own application logic around it. That'll likely be a bit hacky though, so take that suggestion with a grain of salt.
Should a websocket connection be general or specific?
e.g. If I was building a stock trading system, I'd likely to have real time stock prices, real time trade information, real time updates to the order book, perhaps real time chat to enable traders to collude and manipulate the market. Should I have one websocket to handle all the above data flow or is it better to have several websocket to handle different topics?
It all depends. Let's look at your options, assuming your stock trader, your chat, and your order book are built as separate servers/micro-services.
One WebSocket for each server
You can have each server running their own WebSocket server, streaming events relevant to that server.
Pros
It is a simple approach. Each server is independent.
Cons
Scales poorly. The number of open TCP connections will come at a price as the number of concurrent users increases. Increased complexity when you need to replicate the servers for redundancy, as all replicas needs to broadcast the same events. You also have to build your own fallback for recovering from client data going stale due to lost WebSocket connection. Need to create event handlers on the client for each type of event. Might have to add version handling to prevent data races if initial data is fetched over HTTP, while events are sent on the separate WebSocket connection.
Publish/Subscribe event streaming
There are many publish/subscribe solutions available, such as Pusher, PubNub or SocketCluster. The idea is often that your servers publish events on a topic/subject to a message queue, which is listened to by WebSocket servers that forwards the events to the connected clients.
Pros
Scales more easily. The server only needs to send one message, while you can add more WebSocket servers as the number of concurrent users increases.
Cons
You most likely still have to handle recovery from events lost during disconnect. Still might require versioning to handle data races. And still need to write handlers for each type of event.
Realtime API gateway
This part is more shameless, as it covers Resgate, an open source project I've been involved in myself. But it also applies to solutions such as Firebase. With the term "realtime API gateway", I mean an API gateway that not only handles HTTP requests, but operates bidirectionally over WebSocket as well.
With web clients, you are seldom interested in events - you are interested in change of state. Events are just means to either describe the changes. By fetching the data through a gateway, it can keep track on which resources the client is currently interested in. It will then keep the client up to date for as long as the data is being used.
Pros
Scales well. Client requires no custom code for event handling, as the system updates the client data for you. Handles recovery from lost connections. No data races. Simple to work with.
Cons
Primarily for client rendered web sites (using React, Vue, Angular, etc), as it works poorly with sites with server-rendered pages. Harder to apply to already existing HTTP API's.
We need to deliver real-time messages to our clients, but their servers are behind a proxy, and we cannot initialize a connection; webhook variant won't work.
What is the best way to deliver real-time messages considering that:
client that is behind a proxy
client can be off for a long period of time, and all messages must be delivered
the protocol/way must be common enough, so that even a PHP developer could easily use it
I have in mind three variants:
WebSocket - client opens a websocket connection, and we send messages that were stored in DB, and messages comming in real time at the same time.
RabbitMQ - all messages are stored in a durable, persistent queue. What if partner will not read from a queue for some time?
HTTP GET - partner will pull messages by blocks. In this approach it is hard to pick optimal pull interval.
Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks!
Since you seem to have to store messages when your peer is not connected, the question applies to any other solution equally: what if the peer is not connected and messages are queueing up?
RabbitMQ is great if you want loose coupling: separating the producer and the consumer sides. The broker will store messages for you if no consumer is connected. This can indeed fill up memory and/or disk space on the broker after some time - in this case RabbitMQ will shut down.
In general, RabbitMQ is a great tool for messaging-based architectures like the one you describe:
Load balancing: you can use multiple publishers and/or consumers, thus sharing load.
Flexibility: you can configure multiple exchanges/queues/bindings if your business logic needs it. You can easily change routing on the broker without reconfiguring multiple publisher/consumer applications.
Flow control: RabbitMQ also gives you some built-in methods for flow control - if a consumer is too slow to keep up with publishers, RabbitMQ will slow down publishers.
You can refactor the architecture later easily. You can set up multiple brokers and link them via shovel/federation. This is very useful if you need your app to work via multiple data centers.
You can easily spot if one side is slower than the other, since queues will start growing if your consumers can't read fast enough from a queue.
High availability and fault tolerance. RabbitMQ is very good at these (thanks to Erlang).
So I'd recommend it over the other two (which might be good for a small-scale app, but you might grow it out quickly is requirements change and you need to scale up things).
Edit: something I missed - if it's not vital to deliver all messages, you can configure queues with a TTL (message will be discarded after a timeout) or with a limit (this limits the number of messages in the queue, if reached new messages will be discarded).
I am planning to inegrate messaging middleware in my web application. Right now I am tesing different messaging middleware software like RabbitMQ,JMS, HornetQ, etc..
Examples provided with this softwares are working but its not giving as desired results.
So, I want to know that which are the factors which are responsible to improve peformance that one should keep in eyes?
Which are the areas, a developer should take care of to improve the performance of middleware messaging software?
I'm the project lead for HornetQ but I will try to give you a generic answer that could be applied to any message system you choose.
A common question that I see is people asking why a single producer / single consumer won't give you the expected performance.
When you send a message, and are asking confirmation right away, you need to wait:
The message transfer from client to server
The message being persisted on the disk
The server acknowledging receipt of the message by sending a callback to the client
Similarly when you are receiving a message, you ACK to the server:
The ACK is sent from client to server
The ACK is persisted
The server sends back a callback saying that the callback was achieved
And if you need confirmation for all your message-sends and mesage-acks you need to wait these steps as you have a hardware involved on persisting the disk and sending bits on the network.
Message Systems will try to scale up with many producers and many consumers. That is if many are producing they should all use the resources available at the server shared for all the consumers.
There are ways to speed up a single producer or single consumer:
One is by using transactions. So, you minimize the blocks and syncs you perform on disk while persisting at the server and roundtrips on the network. (This is actually the same on any database)
Another one, is by using Callbacks instead of blocking at the consumer. (JMS 2 is proposing a Callback similar to the ConfirmationHandler on HornetQ).
Also: most providers I know will have a performance section on their docs with requirements and suggestions for that specific product. You should look individually at each product
Will web sockets when used in all web browsers make ajax obsolete?
Cause if I could use web sockets to fetch data and update data in realtime, why would I need ajax? Even if I use ajax to just fetch data once when the application started I still might want to see if this data has changed after a while.
And will web sockets be possible in cross-domains or only to the same origin?
WebSockets will not make AJAX entirely obsolete and WebSockets can do cross-domain.
AJAX
AJAX mechanisms can be used with plain web servers. At its most basic level, AJAX is just a way for a web page to make an HTTP request. WebSockets is a much lower level protocol and requires a WebSockets server (either built into the webserver, standalone, or proxied from the webserver to a standalone server).
With WebSockets, the framing and payload is determined by the application. You could send HTML/XML/JSON back and forth between client and server, but you aren't forced to. AJAX is HTTP. WebSockets has a HTTP friendly handshake, but WebSockets is not HTTP. WebSockets is a bi-directional protocol that is closer to raw sockets (intentionally so) than it is to HTTP. The WebSockets payload data is UTF-8 encoded in the current version of the standard but this is likely to be changed/extended in future versions.
So there will probably always be a place for AJAX type requests even in a world where all clients support WebSockets natively. WebSockets is trying to solve situations where AJAX is not capable or marginally capable (because WebSockets its bi-directional and much lower overhead). But WebSockets does not replace everything AJAX is used for.
Cross-Domain
Yes, WebSockets supports cross-domain. The initial handshake to setup the connection communicates origin policy information. The wikipedia page shows an example of a typical handshake: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebSockets
I'll try to break this down into questions:
Will web sockets when used in all web browsers make ajax obsolete?
Absolutely not. WebSockets are raw socket connections to the server. This comes with it's own security concerns. AJAX calls are simply async. HTTP requests that can follow the same validation procedures as the rest of the pages.
Cause if I could use web sockets to fetch data and update data in realtime, why would I need ajax?
You would use AJAX for simpler more manageable tasks. Not everyone wants to have the overhead of securing a socket connection to simply allow async requests. That can be handled simply enough.
Even if I use ajax to just fetch data once when the application started I still might want to see if this data has changed after a while.
Sure, if that data is changing. You may not have the data changing or constantly refreshing. Again, this is code overhead that you have to account for.
And will web sockets be possible in cross-domains or only to the same origin?
You can have cross domain WebSockets but you have to code your WS server to accept them. You have access to the domain (host) header which you can then use to accept / deny requests. This can, however, be spoofed by something as simple as nc. In order to truly secure the connection you will need to authenticate the connection by other means.
Websockets have a couple of big downsides in terms of scalability that ajax avoids. Since ajax sends a request/response and closes the connection (..or shortly after) if someone stays on the web page it doesn't use server resources when idling. Websockets are meant to stream data back to the browser, and they tie up server resources to do so. Servers have a limit in how many simultaneous connections they can keep open at one time. Not to mention depending on your server side technology, they may tie up a thread to handle the socket. So websockets have more resource intensive requirements for both sides per connection. You could easily exhaust all of your threads servicing clients and then no new clients could come in if lots of users are just sitting on the page. This is where nodejs, vertx, netty can really help out, but even those have upper limits as well.
Also there is the issue of state of the underlying socket, and writing the code on both sides that carry on the stateful conversation which isn't something you have to do with ajax style because it's stateless. Websockets require you create a low level protocol which is solved for you with ajax. Things like heart beating, closing idle connections, reconnection on errors, etc are vitally important now. These are things you didn't have to solve when using AJAX because it was stateless. State is very important to the stability of your app and more importantly the health of your server. It's not trivial. Pre-HTTP we built a lot of stateful TCP protocols (FTP, telnet, SSH), and then HTTP happened. And no one did that stuff much anymore because even with its limitations HTTP was surprisingly easier and more robust. Websockets bring back the good and the bad of stateful protocols. You'll learn soon enough if you didn't get a dose of that last go around.
If you need streaming of realtime data this extra overhead is warranted because polling the server to get streamed data is worse, but if all you are doing is user interaction->request->response->update UI, then ajax is easier and will use less resources because once the response is sent the conversation is over and no additional server resources are used. So I think it's a tradeoff and the architect has to decide which tool fits their problem. AJAX has its place, and websockets have their place.
Update
So the architecture of your server is what matters when we are talking about threads. If you are using a traditionally multi-threaded server (or processes) where a each socket connection gets its own thread to respond to requests then websockets matter a lot to you. So for each connection we have a socket, and eventually the OS will fall over if you have too many of these, and the same goes for threads (more so for processes). Threads are heavier than sockets (in terms of resources) so we try and conserve how many threads we have running simultaneously. That means creating a thread pool which is just a fixed number of threads that is shared among all sockets. But once a socket is opened the thread is used for the entire conversation. The length of those conversations govern how quickly you can repurpose those threads for new sockets coming in. The length of your conversation governs how much you can scale. However if you are streaming this model doesn't work well for scaling. You have to break the thread/socket design.
HTTP's request/response model makes it very efficient in turning over threads for new sockets. If you are just going to use request/response use HTTP its already built and much easier than reimplementing something like that in websockets.
Since websockets don't have to be request/response as HTTP and can stream data if your server has a fixed number of threads in its thread pool and you have the same number of websockets tying up all of your threads with active conversations, you can't service new clients coming in! You've reached your maximum capacity. That's where protocol design is important too with websockets and threads. Your protocol might allow you to loosen the thread per socket per conversation model that way people just sitting there don't use a thread on your server.
That's where asynchronous single thread servers come in. In Java we often call this NIO for non-blocking IO. That means it's a different API for sockets where sending and receiving data doesn't block the thread performing the call.
So traditional in blocking sockets when you call socket.read() or socket.write() they wait until the data is received or sent before returning control to your program. That means your program is stuck waiting for the socket data to come in or go out until you can do anything else. That's why we have threads so we can do work concurrently (at the same time). Send this data to client X while I wait on data from client Y. Concurrencies is the name of the game when we talk about servers.
In a NIO server we use a single thread to handle all clients and register callbacks to be notified when data arrives. For example
socket.read( function( data ) {
// data is here! Now you can process it very quickly without waiting!
});
The socket.read() call will return immediately without reading any data, but our function we provided will be called when it comes in. This design radically changes how you build and architect your code because if you get hung up waiting on something you can't receive any new clients. You have a single thread you can't really do two things at once! You have to keep that one thread moving.
NIO, Asynchronous IO, Event based program as this is all known as, is a much more complicated system design, and I wouldn't suggest you try and write this if you are starting out. Even very Senior programmers find it very hard to build a robust systems. Since you are asynchronous you can't call APIs that block. Like reading data from the DB or sending messages to other servers have to be performed asynchronously. Even reading/writing from the file system can slow your single thread down lowering your scalability. Once you go asynchronous it's all asynchronous all the time if you want to keep the single thread moving. That's where it gets challenging because eventually you'll run into an API, like DBs, that is not asynchronous and you have to adopt more threads at some level. So a hybrid approaches are common even in the asynchronous world.
The good news is there are other solutions that use this lower level API already built that you can use. NodeJS, Vertx, Netty, Apache Mina, Play Framework, Twisted Python, Stackless Python, etc. There might be some obscure library for C++, but honestly I wouldn't bother. Server technology doesn't require the very fastest languages because it's IO bound more than CPU bound. If you are a die hard performance nut use Java. It has a huge community of code to pull from and it's speed is very close (and sometimes better) than C++. If you just hate it go with Node or Python.
Yes, yes it does. :D
The earlier answers lack imagination. I see no more reason to use AJAX if websockets are available to you.