I have successfully implemented a server using Faye websocket library on top of Rack, with a puma webserver, as described here.
In my application the client first sends audio data to be processed to the server and then iteratively asks the server whether the data has been finished processing. Once the server gets the data it stores it into a queue for processing. Every time the app asks the server, the server checks the queue and either returns null or returns the processed result.
I would like to reimplement this so that the server would asynchronously send a message to the client whenever it finished processing without the client having to iteratively ask all the time.
I have seen possible solutions like sleeping and iteratively checking the status until it is ready, but I am worried this would block the server and would make this not scalable. Another alternative would be using the ping/pong capability of Faye websockets, but I can see this as doing exactly the same I do now.
Any other ideas on how I could implement it?
Related
I have a high performance client server system programmed from the scratch. i am still improving my system. the server using io overlapping to handle connections. the server correctly handles disconnections and resource deallocations. at the client side i used shutdown command with sd_receive to notify the server that the client has no data to receive after final send from the client. this works well. and server detects that as a graceful disconnection. rarely i have observed when the connection is very slow the server doesn't detect this. I feel that the shutdown partial closure doesn't reach the server. how can i handle this. this is important the server shouldn't contain this kind of connections if so the server can not be stopped. and i do not want to close all such connection by force.
at the client side i used shutdown command with sd_receive to notify the server that the client has no data to receive after final send from the client.
It doesn't do that.
this works well
It doesn't work at all. The shutdown command with SD_RECEIVE that you're using is completely pointless. A close, or a shutdown with SD_SEND or SD_BOTH, sends a FIN: shutdown with SD_RECEIVE does exactly nothing on the wire, and specifically it does not 'notify the server' of anything.
I feel that the shutdown partial closure doesn't reach the server.
It never reaches the server. Your code doesn't work the way you think it does. What reaches the server is the FIN, which in turn is the result of the close, not the shutdown SD_RECEIVE.
What you need here is a read timeout at the server end. As you're using select() or whatever is delivering you the events, you will have to implement the timeout manually yourself.
I have read many articles on real-time push notifications. And the resume is that websocket is generally the preferred technique as long as you are not concerned about 100% browser compatibility. And yet, one article states that
Long polling - potentially when you are exchanging single call with
server, and server is doing some work in background.
This is exactly my case. The user presses a button which initiates some complex calculations on server-side, and as soon as the answer is ready, the server sends a push-notification to the client. The question is, can we say that for the case of one-time responses, long-polling is better choice than websockets?
Or unless we are concerned about obsolete browsers support and if I am going to start the project from scratch, websockets should ALWAYS be preferred to long-polling when it comes to push-protocol ?
The question is, can we say that for the case of one-time responses,
long-polling is better choice than websockets?
Not really. Long polling is inefficient (multiple incoming requests, multiple times your server has to check on the state of the long running job), particularly if the usual time period is long enough that you're going to have to poll many times.
If a given client page is only likely to do this operation once, then you can really go either way. There are some advantages and disadvantages to each mechanism.
At a response time of 5-10 minutes you cannot assume that a single http request will stay alive that long awaiting a response, even if you make sure the server side will stay open that long. Clients or intermediate network equipment (proxies, etc...) just make not keep the initial http connection open that long. That would have been the most efficient mechanism if you could have done that. But, I don't think you can count on that for a random network configuration and client configuration that you do not control.
So, that leaves you with several options which I think you already know, but I will describe here for completeness for others.
Option 1:
Establish websocket connection to the server by which you can receive push response.
Make http request to initiate the long running operation. Return response that the operation has been successfully initiated.
Receive websocket push response some time later.
Close webSocket (assuming this page won't be doing this again).
Option 2:
Make http request to initiate the long running operation. Return response that the operation has been successfully initiated and probably some sort of taskID that can be used for future querying.
Using http "long polling" to "wait" for the answer. Since these requests will likely "time out" before the response is received, you will have to regularly long poll until the response is received.
Option 3:
Establish webSocket connection.
Send message over webSocket connection to initiate the operation.
Receive response some time later that the operation is complete.
Close webSocket connection (assuming this page won't be using it any more).
Option 4:
Same as option 3, but using socket.io instead of plain webSocket to give you heartbeat and auto-reconnect logic to make sure the webSocket connection stays alive.
If you're looking at things purely from the networking and server efficiency point of view, then options 3 or 4 are likely to be the most efficient. You only have the overhead of one TCP connection between client and server and that one connection is used for all traffic and the traffic on that one connection is pretty efficient and supports actual push so the client gets notified as soon as possible.
From an architecture point of view, I'm not a fan of option 1 because it just seems a bit convoluted when you initiate the request using one technology and then send the response via another and it requires you to create a correlation between the client that initiated an incoming http request and a connected webSocket. That can be done, but it's extra bookkeeping on the server. Option 2 is simple architecturally, but inefficient (regularly polling the server) so it's not my favorite either.
There is an alterternative that don't require polling or having an open socket connection all the time.
It's called web push.
The Push API gives web applications the ability to receive messages pushed to them from a server, whether or not the web app is in the foreground, or even currently loaded, on a user agent. This lets developers deliver asynchronous notifications and updates to users that opt in, resulting in better engagement with timely new content.
Some perks are
You need to ask for notification permission
Your site needs to have a service worker running in foreground
having a service worker also means you need to have SSL / HTTPS
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.
I've been searching online for days now and I can't find anyone who has this same problem with the VB6 Winsock. So here's my problem, I have a server with two winsocks in an array. I then have two clients each with one winsock control. Now the I have it set up is that the server first sends data to client A. Then client A receives that data and sends its own data back to the server. Then the server sends data to client B, once client B receives the data, it sends its own data back to the server. So data is being sent from a client to the server, then from the server to another client, then back to the server, and then on to another client. I did it this way because when I tried doing it the way I really want it to work, I was having problems. So I had to set it up this way in order to ensure that only one client is sending data to the server at any one time. This process works perfectly, however I want it to work in a different way, since as you can image, the more clients there are, the longer the delay in data transfer between each client and the server.
So what I really want to do, which I can't get to work, is have the clients send and receive data to the server whenever they want. That is, client A sends data to the server, and then the server sends data back, all while client B is doing the same thing. When I do this, even though I have a winsock array on the server, I run into a problem. When client A first connects, it begins sending and receiving data to the server. But once client B connects to the server, all communication between client A and the server stops, and only client B sends and receives data to the server. Now I've done some tests and client A remains connected to the server the whole time. But for some reason, it seems that if two clients send data to the server simultaneously, only one data arrival event fires, even though each winsock is on a different port. I have not installed VB6 SP6 yet, as I'm not sure this will fix the problem.
So I really do hope someone will read this and explain to me what it is that I'm not understanding or what it is that I'm doing wrong.
If you search for Microsoft KB articles on the Winsock control you will find a long history of flaws and bug fixes. There is absolutely no reason not to install SP6 before even attempting to use VB6, since a vast number of issues were resolved over time.
Once you've done that (and only then) is it really worth talking about problems of the sort you describe. At least it eliminates a significant number of known problems, and then it might be worth discussing your code.
Are you using none blocking sockets? I guess you should.
You should probably create a thread for each incoming connection.
So the main loop should act none blocking and create a thread for each incoming connection, that receives the data and sends the answer.
I've developed a web-based application in which a signed in user should send a message to the server telling he is still online every 3 seconds. The message is then processed by the server and a stored procedure is called in Mysql to set the user's status to online.
I've looked in to similar issues in which Comet and Ajax are compared (here or here) but considering that 3 second delay is acceptable and maximum users of 1000 are online in the system, is using Ajax a wise choice or Comet should be used?
For this kind of feature comet is more appropriate:
Your clients send messages (i'm online)
Your server broadcast the processed message (user X is still online)
In an ajax way you are only serving messages to server.
In order to get the "broadcast effect" in an ajax way. You will end up doing something similar to comet but with less efficient bandwidth.
Ajax:
Client send server - i'm in
Server process
Server send back to client list of user in.
In this case every client ask every 3 second the database for the COMPLETE "in" list.
In comet:
Client X send server - i'm in
Server process
Server send back to client S that user X is still online
In this case every client tell the server every 3 second that he is in.
The server send back to every connected client ONLY that x is still in
Comet is just the technique to broadcast back and push messages to client
Ajax is the technique to push client information to the server without having to refresh all the page.
Quoting wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_%28programming%29
Comet is known by several other names, including Ajax Push, Reverse Ajax , Two-way-web, HTTP Streaming,and HTTP server push among others.
So go comet :)
If you do not broadcast anything, then simple Ajax is the best option
In this particular case, since you do not need to send any information from the server to the client(s), I believe Ajax is the more appropriate solution. Every three seconds, the client tells the server it is connected, the database is updated, and you're done.
It could certainly be done using Comet, in which case you would basically ping each registered client to see if it is still connected. But, you would still need to run a query on the database for each client that responds, plus you would still need the client to notify the server on its initial connection. So, it seems to me that Comet would be more trouble than it's worth. The only thing that might make sense is if you could ping each registered client and store the responses in memory, then once all clients have been pinged you can run one single query to update all of their statuses. This would give you the added bonus of knowing as soon as a client disconnects as opposed to waiting for a timeout. Unfortunately, that is beyond the scope of my expertise with Comet so, at this point, I can't help to actually implement it.