I am using OkHttp3 to make a websocket connection to a third-party server to receive data. I want to track the latency of the websocket connection.
This solution seems the way to go, but without ping/pong being exposed in OkHttp3, how do I figure out the latency?
This is something that OkHttp should consider exposing to clients, with the existing Ping events.
Until and if that becomes possible, your best best is probably to implement application level pings to the backend for tracking this.
Related
I'm new user of envoy proxy, maybe someone can help me
I have 2 upstream hosts (UH1 and UH2), and configured envoy proxy to proxy (round robin) websocket connections from a client (frontend) to them.
Let's say UH1 has an active websocket connection (WC1) and UH1 becomes down (closes all its connections) I would like to keep the connection WC1 alive with a client and move the connection to UH2. Could anyone say if it is possible?
Thank you in advance!
I asked this question in the official google group of envoy-dev team and got an answer from Stephan:
This isn’t currently supported.
My sense is that one might be able to write an HTTP filter that takes
the place of the router filter to support this behavior in conjunction
with upgrade configs[1], but it’s probably a lot of work. That filter
would probably need to buffer the original HTTP request to be able
form a new websocket to a different upstream, and it would need to
decode websocket frames to avoid forwarding partial frames. Further if
the messages on the websocket are request/response oriented the filter
would have buffer websocket frames and have knowledge of their content
to avoid dropping requests.
In my experience, optimizing reconnect from the client and just
forming a new websocket connection is simpler to implement and also
provides benefits when the connection between the client and Envoy is
severed.
Stephan
https://groups.google.com/g/envoy-dev/c/3yCTqLx5ePE
I am struggling to find information on how to gauge the scalability of websockets. A scenario -
Let's say from client wants to establish socket connection from a browser, and the client application and service layer (Micronaut) both have two instances behind an elb - service layer will sit us-east region and can expect anyone from around the world can access the frontend app from browser and can expect an open connection for an avg of 2-5 min, no longer than 30 minutes.
Is there a ballpark number on how many concurrent websocket connections a couple servers can handle? Or if there are certain factors that I didn't mention that are vital to handling websocket connections in general?
Thank you in advance.
I'm assuming you want to know the scalability of the implementation of WS in Micronaut and not WS in general. Of course, the scalability of WS is dependent on the specific implementation and WS itself. You probably already know this, but wanted to state it for the record. You may also want to be sure you increase your file descriptors for your server process to the max number (you may have to adjust your kernel to increase the FDs).
Btw, don't forget to handle retries and reconnects as you would for a low-level TCP connection
I have a Websocket connection being served from http-kit (Clojure, and it works great). I send pings from the client to make sure we're still connected, and everything works fine there. My question is, do people bother pinging client from server in these cases?
I was trying to set something up to remove the channel from the server if I didn't get a response, but it's not very functional-friendly to set up timed processes and alter state to track the ping-pong cycle, so it was getting a little ugly. Then I thought, the server can handle hundreds of thousands of simultaneous connections, should I just not worry about a few broken threads? How do people typically handle (or not handle) this?
The WebSocket protocol itself has heart beating to keep the connection alive. If you wanted an additional layer on top of that you could use the STOMP protocol, which coordinates heartbeats between client/server.
The one STOMP implementation I know of for the JVM is Stampy. There’s one for JS too, stompjs. Note: the heartbeat implementation differs between these libs, I believe the Stampy one is incorrect. You’d have to roll your own.
I am trying to build an API Dashboard using websockets using golang. Due to lack of resources up there for Go or lack of my knowlege in websockets, I am posting here.
I already build an api dashboard without websockets. Now I am trying to use websockets.
My question is more of conceptual one. How can I trigger websocket connection (multiple times) in between a tcp connection.
In Detail:
I have two endpoints for my API. /process for doing some computation. And /stats for showing result of those computations.
I do understand that /stats should be client and /process as a server for websockets.
Sincer Handler function for /process uses tcp sockets. And In between I have to send websocket messages to the client (in the begining & end of computation). So how can this be achievable?
Since, I can't conceptually do this. I am doing trial and error still no success. I guess I am missing some big chunk of information, so please do suggest some concepts or ideas to make it work. (Programming language no barrier)
For reference regarding those handler function for endpoints https://play.golang.org/p/EXNbj-v_Xq
I have an API running on a server, which handle users connection and a messaging system.
Beside that, I launched a websocket on that same server, waiting for connections and stuff.
And let's say we can get access to this by an Android app.
I'm having troubles to figure out what I should do now, here are my thoughts:
1 - When a user connect to the app, the API connect to the websocket. We allow the Android app only to listen on this socket to get new messages. When the user want to answer, the Android app send a message to the API. The API writes itself the received message to the socket, which will be read back by the Android app used by another user.
This way, the API can store the message in database before writing it in the socket.
2- The API does not connect to the websocket in any way. The Android app listen and write to the websocket when needed, and should, when writing to the websocket, also send a request to the API so it can store the message in DB.
May be none of the above is correct, please let me know
EDIT
I already understood why I should use a websocket, seems like it's the best way to have this "real time" system (when getting a new message for example) instead of forcing the client to make an HTTP request every x seconds to check if there are new messages.
What I still don't understand, is how it is suppose to communicate with my database. Sorry if my example is not clear, but I'll try to keep going with it :
My messaging system need to store all messages in my API database, to have some kind of historic of the conversation.
But it seems like a websocket must be running separately from the API, I mean it's another program right? Because it's not for HTTP requests
So should the API also listen to this websocket to catch new messages and store them?
You really have not described what the requirements are for your application so it's hard for us to directly advise what your app should do. You really shouldn't start out your analysis by saying that you have a webSocket and you're trying to figure out what to do with it. Instead, lay out the requirements of your app and figure out what technology will best meet those requirements.
Since your requirements are not clear, I'll talk about what a webSocket is best used for and what more traditional http requests are best used for.
Here are some characteristics of a webSocket:
It's designed to be continuously connected over some longer duration of time (much longer than the duration of one exchange between client and server).
The connection is typically made from a client to a server.
Once the connection is established, then data can be sent in either direction from client to server or from server to client at any time. This is a huge difference from a typical http request where data can only be requested by the client - with an http request the server can not initiate the sending of data to the client.
A webSocket is not a request/response architecture by default. In fact to make it work like request/response requires building a layer on top of the webSocket protocol so you can tell which response goes with which request. http is natively request/response.
Because a webSocket is designed to be continuously connected (or at least connected for some duration of time), it works very well (and with lower overhead) for situations where there is frequent communication between the two endpoints. The connection is already established and data can just be sent without any connection establishment overhead. In addition, the overhead per message is typically smaller with a webSocket than with http.
So, here are a couple typical reasons why you might choose one over the other.
If you need to be able to send data from server to client without having the client regular poll for new data, then a webSocket is very well designed for that and http cannot do that.
If you are frequently sending lots of small bits of data (for example, a temperature probe sending the current temperature every 10 seconds), then a webSocket will incur less network and server overhead than initiating a new http request for every new piece of data.
If you don't have either of the above situations, then you may not have any real need for a webSocket and an http request/response model may just be simpler.
If you really need request/response where a specific response is tied to a specific request, then that is built into http and is not a built-in feature of webSockets.
You may also find these other posts useful:
What are the pitfalls of using Websockets in place of RESTful HTTP?
What's the difference between WebSocket and plain socket communication?
Push notification | is websocket mandatory?
How does WebSockets server architecture work?
Response to Your Edit
But it seems like a websocket must be running separately from the API,
I mean it's another program right? Because it's not for HTTP requests
The same process that supports your API can also be serving the webSocket connections. Thus, when you get incoming data on the webSocket, you can just write it directly to the database the same way the API would access the database. So, NO the webSocket server does not have to be a separate program or process.
So should the API also listen to this websocket to catch new messages
and store them?
No, I don't think so. Only one process can be listening to a set of incoming webSocket connections.