I am using socket.io 1.4 and I want to know that what happens in this scenario:
The client Emits like this:
Socket.emit('test',data);
The client does 3 emits to server but suddenly Internet speed drops and those emits may not get to server
But after a while the Internet speed rises again but what will happen to previous failed emits?
They will be emitted again automatically?
How should I handle that
Websockets use TCP, which is in general a reliable protocol. There is not exactly such a thing as "The internet speed dropped and I lost some messages." If some messages are lost they will be automatically retransmitted at the TCP level. If retransmission fails completely, the connection will be reset.
So what you really are asking is how socket.io handles this. And the answer is that it has some amount of reconnecting logic, and you may also want to monitor the connection in case it resets (hook up a listener for the disconnect event on the socket), if you want to take some extra action (like notify the user).
Related
As I understand it, Websockets use a Ping to detect that they are still connected. Except of course Chrome which leaves it to apps to do the ping themselves.
I'd like to understand if its possible for a connection to become unstable between pings such that a frame of data is not received... but to stabilize again by the time the next ping is sent. In other words: is it possible to have an apparently good websocket connection, but for data to fail to arrive?
Question relates to Is it possible to miss websocket events which remains unanswered and side-tracked into long-polling and socket-io.
Thanks!
This is heavily dependent on the client software (browser) that you use.
The websockets depend on a TCP connection which will make sure the message arrives to destination. Except if the network connection is down, of course.
However, some clients (browsers) will suspend the inactive tabs and will not process the events. If your page is inactive, it "may" fail to send data to the server because it will not be executed at all. On the other hand, it "may" also fail to receive data because the handler will not be executed at all.
Meanwhile, even if inactive, the machine will still receive the ping packets. So it is really about whether or not your client software gives it back to your code or not.
We have a node instance that has about 2500 client socket connections, everything runs fine except occasionally then something happens to the service (restart or failover event in azure), when the node instances comes back up and all socket connections try to reconnect the service comes to a halt and the log just shows repeated socket connect/disconnects. Even if we stop the service and start it the same thing happens, we currently send out a package to our on premise servers to kill the users chrome sessions then everything works fine as users begin logging in again. We have the clients currently connecting with 'forceNew' and force web sockets only and not the default long polling than upgrade. Any one ever see this or have ideas?
In your socket.io client code, you can force the reconnects to be spread out in time more. The two configuration variables that appear to be most relevant here are:
reconnectionDelay
Determines how long socket.io will initially wait before attempting a reconnect (it should back off from there if the server is down awhile). You can increase this to make it less likely they are all trying to reconnect at the same time.
randomizationFactor
This is a number between 0 and 1.0 and defaults to 0.5. It determines how much the above delay is randomly modified to try to make client reconnects be more random and not all at the same time. You can increase this value to increase the randomness of the reconnect timing.
See client doc here for more details.
You may also want to explore your server configuration to see if it is as scalable as possible with moderate numbers of incoming socket requests. While nobody expects a server to be able to handle 2500 simultaneous connections all at once, the server should be able to queue up these connection requests and serve them as it gets time without immediately failing any incoming connection that can't immediately be handled. There is a desirable middle ground of some number of connections held in a queue (usually controllable by server-side TCP configuration parameters) and then when the queue gets too large connections are failed immediately and then socket.io should back-off and try again a little later. Adjusting the above variables will tell it to wait longer before retrying.
Also, I'm curious why you are using forceNew. That does not seem like it would help you. Forcing webSockets only (no initial polling) is a good thing.
I have a client/server setup in which clients send a single request message to the server and gets a bunch of data messages back.
The server is implemented using a ROUTER socket and the clients using a DEALER. The communication is asynchronous.
The clients are typically iPads/iPhones and they connect over wifi so the connection is not 100% reliable.
The issue I’m concern about is if the client connects to the server and sends a request for data but before the response messages are delivered back the communication goes down (e.g. out of wifi coverage).
In this case the messages will be queued up on the server side waiting for the client to reconnect. That is fine for a short time but eventually I would like to drop the messages and the connection to release resources.
By checking activity/timeouts it would be possible in the server and the client applications to identify that the connection is gone. The client can shutdown the socket and in this way free resources but how can it be done in the server?
Per the ZMQ FAQ:
How can I flush all messages that are in the ZeroMQ socket queue?
There is no explicit command for flushing a specific message or all messages from the message queue. You may set ZMQ_LINGER to 0 and close the socket to discard any unsent messages.
Per this mailing list discussion from 2013:
There is no option to drop old messages [from an outgoing message queue].
Your best bet is to implement heartbeating and, when one client stops responding without explicitly disconnecting, restart your ROUTER socket. Messy, I know, this is really something that should have a companion option to HWM. Pieter Hintjens is clearly on board (he created ZMQ) - but that was from 2011, so it looks like nothing ever came of it.
This is a bit late but setting tcp keepalive to a reasonable value will cause dead sockets to close after the timeouts have expired.
Heartbeating is necessary for either side to determine the other side is still responding.
The only thing I'm not sure about is how to go about heartbeating many thousands of clients without spending all available cpu just on dealing with the heartbeats.
I'm using uwsgi's websockets support and so far it's looking great, the server detects when the client disconnects and the client as well when the server goes down. But i'm concerned this will not work in every case/browser.
In other frameworks, namely sockjs, the connection is monitored by sending regular messages that work as heartbeats/pings. But uwsgi sends PING/PONG frames (ie. not regular messages/control frames) according to the websockets spec and so from the client side i have no way to know when the last ping was received from the server. So my question is this:
If the connection is dropped or blocked by some proxy will browsers reliably (ie. Chrome, IE, Firefox, Opera) detect no PING was received from the server and signal the connection as down or should i implement some additional ping/pong system so that the connection is detected as closed from the client side?
Thanks
You are totally right. There is no way from client side to track or send ping/pongs. So if the connection drops, the server is able of detecting this condition through the ping/pong, but the client is let hung... until it tries to send something and the underlying TCP mechanism detect that the other side is not ACKnowledging its packets.
Therefore, if the client application expects to be "listening" most of the time, it may be convenient to implement a keep alive system that works "both ways" as Stephen Clearly explains in the link you posted. But, this keep alive system would be part of your application layer, rather than part of the transport layer as ping/pongs.
For example you can have a message "{token:'whatever'}" that the server and client just echoes with a 5 seconds delay. The client should have a timer with a 10 seconds timeout that stops every time that messages is received and starts every time the message is echoed, if the timer triggers, the connection can be consider dropped.
Although browsers that implement the same RFC as uWSGI should detect reliably when the server closes the connection cleanly they won't detect when the connection is interrupted midway (half open connections)t. So from what i understand we should employ an extra mechanism like application level pings.
Imagine you have a server which can handle only one client at a time. The server uses WSAAsyncSelect to be notified of new connections. In this case, what is the best way of handling FD_ACCEPT messages:
A > Accept the connection attempt right away but queue the client until its turn?
B > Do not accept the next connection attempt until we are done serving the currently connected client?
What do you guys think is the most efficient?
Here I describe the cons that I'm aware for both options. Hopefully this might help you decide.
A)
Upon a new client connection, it could send tons of data making your receive buffer become full, which causes unnecessary packets to be transmitted (see this). If you don't plan to receive any data from the client, shutdown receiving on that socket, thus if the client sends any data after that, the connection is reset. Moreover, if your protocol has strict rules, disconnect the client.
If the connection stays idle for too long, the system might disconnect it. To solve this, use setsockopt to set SO_KEEPALIVE on each client socket.
B)
If you don't accept the connection after a certain period (I guess the default is 60 seconds), it will timeout. In a normal (or most common) situation this indicates the server is overloaded, thus unable to answer in time. However, if the client is also designed by you, make the socket non-blocking, try to connect, then manage the timeout as you wish.
Ask yourself: what do you want the user experience to be at the other end? Do you want them to be stuck? Do you want them to time out? Do you want them to get a polite message?