Is this possible?
Right now I have one wt server being launcher per application instance, but I've been told they would like there to be one wt server per machine (not matter how many application instances are launched).
There will only be a maximum of 3 applications per machine, but this requires 3 different ports to be opened for communication (one per application).
How can this be done?
My boss said something about using JSON to send data...??
Not sure how I should understand your question - do you want to deploy three applications, all listening at port 80, in three different URLs, or do you want to have one process listening on three different ports?
The former can be done by invoking WServer::addEntryPoint() multiple times. See examples/simplechat/simpleChat.C, but then with multiple calls to addEntryPoint() for type Wt::Application.
The latter can be done by instantiating multiple WServer objects, each with their own configuration. See examples/feature/multiple_servers.
Related
Is it possible to run several sessions parallel with ZAP?
I need to scan several contexts parallel to speed the process up, because I have around 20 contexts.
I want to run them in parallel sessions and not in a singular one, so I can generate one report per context. I didn't find a way to do that directly. As far as I know you can only generate a report per session. That would also be a solution too though to generate a report per context, if possible.
I'm working with the Java API and as far as I know, as soon as a new Session is created, the running one is deleted.
Kind of yes, but only by running multiple ZAP instances. Make sure you start them in different directories (using the -d dir option) and listening on different ports. How many ZAP instances you can run at once will depend on how powerful a machine you have.
We are building a reporting app on Laravel that need to fetch users data from a third-party server that allow 1 request per seconds.
We need to fetch 100K to 1000K rows based on user and we can fetch max 250 rows per request.
So the restriction is:
1. We can send 1 request per seconds
2. 250 rows per request
So, it requires 400-4000 request/jobs to fetch a user data, So, loading data for multiple users is very time-consuming and the server gets slow.
So, now, we are planning to load the data using multiple servers, like 4-10 servers to fetch users data, so we can send 10 requests per second from 10 servers.
How can we design the system and process jobs from multiple servers?
Is it possible to use a dedicated server for hosting Redis and connect to that Redis server from multiple servers and execute jobs? Can any conflict/race-condition happen?
Any hint or prior experience related to this would be really helpful.
The short answer is yes, this is absolutely possible and is something I've implemented in production apps many times before.
Redis is just like any other service and can run anywhere, with clients from anywhere, connecting to it. It's all up to your configuration of the server to dictate how exactly that happens (and adding passwords, configuring spiped, limiting access via the firewall, etc.). I'd reccommend reading up on the documentation they have in the Administration section here: https://redis.io/documentation
Also, when you do make the move to a dedicated Redis host, with multiple clients accessing it, you'll likely want to look into having more than just one Redis server running for reliability, high availability, etc. Redis has efficient and easy replication available with a few simple configuration commands, which you can read more about here: https://redis.io/topics/replication
Last thing on Redis, if you do end up implementing a master-slave set up, you may want to look into high availability and auto-failover if your Master instance were to go down. Redis has a really great utility built into the application that can monitor your Master and Slaves, detect when the Master is down, and automatically re-configure your servers to promote one of the slaves to the new master. The utility is called Redis Sentinel, and you can read about that here: https://redis.io/topics/sentinel
For your question about race conditions, it depends on how exactly you write your jobs that are pushed onto the queue. For your use case though, it doesn't sound like this would be too much of an issue, but it really depends on the constraints of the third-party system. Either way, if you are subject to a race condition, you can still implement a solution for it, but would likely need to use something like a Redis Lock (https://redis.io/topics/distlock). Taylor recently added a new feature to the upcoming Laravel version 5.6 that I believe implements a version of the Redis Lock in the scheduler (https://medium.com/#taylorotwell/laravel-5-6-preview-single-server-scheduling-54df8e0e139b). You can look into how that was implemented, and adapt for your use case if you end up needing it.
I have noticed that some applications like firefox/iexplorer/windows image viewer etc are not creating new processes for new instances of the application. To explain what i mean i would expect that when opening two instances of firefox for example there would exist two different processes. Some other applications i tested had a process per instance.
My first question is why would someone use the one process multiple instances model? It seems a lot more complex to me than having an instance per process. I suppose that one reason may be resources usage.
My second question is how would you implement something like this? Assigning some threads to the new instance for example?
Firstly, one process for multiple "instances" keeps all the processes memory in one place, removing the need to use IPC to send messages between different "instances".
To implement something like this you can use the CreateMutex API here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms682411(v=vs.85).aspx
If the mutex already exists and another instance of your app is launched, you can just forward the app open call to the existing instance of the app.
I'm working on a web application frontend to a legacy system which involves a lot of CPU bound background processing. The application is also stateful on the server side and the domain objects needs to be held in memory across the entire session as the user operates on it via the web based interface. Think of it as something like a web UI front end to photoshop where each filter can take 20-30 seconds to execute on the server side, so the app still has to interact with the user in real time while they wait.
The main problem is that each instance of the server can only support around 4-8 instances of each "workspace" at once and I need to support a few hundreds of concurrent users at once. I'm going to be building this on Amazon EC2 to make use of the auto scaling functionality. So to summarize, the system is:
A web application frontend to a legacy backend system
task performed are CPU bound
Stateful, most calls will be some sort of RPC, the user will make multiple actions that interact with the stateful objects held in server side memory
Most tasks are semi-realtime, where they have to execute for 20-30 seconds and return the results to the user in the same session
Use amazon aws auto scaling
I'm wondering what is the best way to make a system like this distributed.
Obviously I will need a web server to interact with the browser and then send the cpu-bound tasks from the web server to a bunch of dedicated servers that does the background processing. The question is how to best hook up the 2 tiers together for my specific neeeds.
I've been looking at message Queue systems such as rabbitMQ but these seems to be geared towards one time task where any worker node can simply grab a job form a queue, execute it and forget the state. My needs are a little different since there could be multiple 'tasks' that needs to be 'sticky', for example if step 1 is started in node 1 then step 2 for the same workspace has to go to the same worker process.
Another problem I see is that most worker queue systems seems to be geared towards background tasks that can be processed anytime rather than a system that has to provide user feedback that I'm dealing with.
My question is, is there an off the shelf solution for something like this that will allow me to easily build a system that can scale? Would love to hear your thoughts.
RabbitMQ is has an RPC tutorial. I haven't used this pattern in particular but I am running RabbitMQ on a couple of nodes and it can handle hundreds of connections and millions of messages. With a little work in monitoring you can detect when there is more work to do then you have consumers for. Messages can also timeout so queues won't backup too greatly. To scale out capacity you can create multiple RabbitMQ nodes/clusters. You could have multiple rounds of RPC so that after the first response you include the information required to get second message to the correct destination.
0MQ has this as a basic pattern which will fanout work as needed. I've only played with this but it is simpler to code and possibly simpler to maintain (as it doesn't need a broker, devices can provide one though). This may not handle stickiness by default but it should be possible to write your own routing layer to handle it.
Don't discount HTTP for this as well. When you want request/reply, a strict throughput per backend node, and something that scales well, HTTP is well supported. With AWS you can use their ELB easily in front of an autoscaling group to provide the routing from frontend to backend. ELB supports sticky sessions as well.
I'm a big fan of RabbitMQ but if this is the whole scope then HTTP would work nicely and have fewer moving parts in AWS than the other solutions.
For being specific, I am using asterisk with a Heartbeat active/pasive cluster. There are 2 nodes in the cluster. Let's suppose Asterisk1 Asterisk2. Eveything is well configured in my cluster. When one of the nodes looses internet connection, asterisk service fails or the Asterisk1 is turned off, the asterisk service and the failover IP migrate to the surviving node (Asterisk2).
The problem is if we actually were processing a call when the Asterisk1 fell down asterisk stops the call and I can redial until asterisk service is up in asterisk2 (5 seconds, not a bad time).
But, my question is: Is there a way to make asterisk work like skype when it looses connection in a call? I mean, not stopping the call and try to reconnect the call, and reconnect it when asterisk service is up in Asterisk2?
There are some commercial systems that support such behavour.
If you want do it on non-comercial system there are 2 way:
1) Force call back to all phones with autoanswer flag. Requerment: Guru in asterisk.
2) Use xen and memory mapping/mirror system to maintain on other node vps with same memory state(same running asterisk). Requirment: guru in XEN. See for example this: http://adrianotto.com/2009/11/remus-project-full-memory-mirroring/
Sorry, both methods require guru knowledge level.
Note, if you do sip via openvpn tunnel, very likly you not loose calls inside tunnel if internet go down for upto 20 sec. That is not exactly what you asked, but can work.
Since there is no accepted answer after almost 2 years I'll provide one: NO. Here's why.
If you failover from one Asterisk server 1 to Asterisk server 2, then Asterisk server 2 has no idea what calls (i.e. endpoint to endpoing) were in progress. (Even if you share a database of called numbers, use asterisk realtime, etc). If asterisk tried to bring up both legs of the call to the same numbers, these might not be the same endpoints of the call.
Another server cannot resume the SIP TCP session of the other server since it closed with the last server.
The MAC source/destination ports may be identical and your firewall will not know you are trying to continue the same session.
etc.....
If you goal is high availability of phone services take a look at the VoIP Info web site. All the rest (network redundancy, disk redundancy, shared block storage devices, router failover protocol, etc) is a distraction...focus instead on early DETECTION of failures across all trunks/routes/devices involved with providing phone service, and then providing the highest degree of recovery without sharing ANY DEVICES. (Too many HA solutions share a disk, channel bank, etc. that create a single point of failure)
Your solution would require a shared database that is updated in realtime on both servers. The database would be managed by an event logger that would keep track of all calls in progress; flagged as LINEUP perhaps. In the event a failure was detected, then all calls that were on the failed server would be flagged as DROPPEDCALL. When your fail-over server spins up and takes over -- using heartbeat monitoring or somesuch -- then the first thing it would do is generate a set of call files of all database records flagged as DROPPPEDCALL. These calls can then be conferenced together.
The hardest part about it is the event monitor, ensuring that you don't miss any RING or HANGUP events, potentially leaving a "ghost" call in the system to be erroneously dialed in a recovery operation.
You likely should also have a mechanism to build your Asterisk config on a "management" machine that then pushes changes out to your farm of call-manager AST boxen. That way any node is replaceable with any other.
What you should likely have is 2 DB servers using replication techniques and Linux High-Availability (LHA) (1). Alternately, DNS round-robin or load-balancing with a "public" IP would do well, too. These machine will likely be light enough load to host your configuration manager as well, with the benefit of getting LHA for "free".
Then, at least N+1 AST Boxen for call handling. N is the number of calls you plan on handling per second divided by 300. The "+1" is your fail-over node. Using node-polling, you can then set up a mechanism where the fail-over node adopts the identity of the failed machine by pulling the correct configuration from the config manager.
If hardware is cheap/free, then 1:1 LHA node redundancy is always an option. However, generally speaking, your failure rate for PC hardware and Asterisk software is fairly lower; 3 or 4 "9s" out of the can. So, really, you're trying to get last bit of distance to the "5th 9".
I hope that gives you some ideas about which way to go. Let me know if you have any questions, and please take the time to "accept" which ever answer does what you need.
(1) http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/ahead-pack-pacemaker-high-availability-stack