Here is what we're doing :
We use Socket.io to broadcast our events. We experienced troubles with proxies and/or firewalls, so we only used socket.io with XHR-Polling, not Websockets.
It was working well, but a lot of our users are using our app with smartphones, or bad internet connections. Sometimes, they were never receiving the broadcasted events, despite the fact they were still connected to our Node server.
So we added an additional long-polling system, which looks at what you received from socket.io every X seconds, and gives you the events you missed.
Now, we're using SSL on our Node server, and we're able to enable websockets again without being blocked by firewalls.
The question is : is our additional long-polling system still useful with websockets enabled ? Is it possible to miss websockets events if you have a bad internet connection ? Or should we just use it in case of disconnection/reconnection ?
TL;DR :
Is it possible to miss websockets events if you have a bad internet connection, without being disconnected ?
Thanks
Related
I have a process that runs in California that wants to talk to a process in New York, using Stomp over Websockets.
Also note that my process is not a web app, but I implemented a stomp over websocket client in C++, in order to connect things up to my backend. Maybe this was or wasn't a good idea. So, I want my client to talk to the server and subscribe, where their client pushed messages.
I was implementing my own server when I saw that ApacheMQ supported Stomp over Websockets. So, I started reading the docs.
It says with the last line under 'configuration' at
http://activemq.apache.org/websockets :
One thing worth noting is that web sockets (just as Ajax) implements ? > the same origin policy, so you can access only brokers running on the > same host as the web application running the client.
it says it again in several related searches such as http://sensatic.net/activemq/activemq-54-stomp-over-web-sockets.html
Is this a limitation of the server or the web client?
With that limitation, if I understand right, the server is not going to accept websocket connections from a client, of any kind, that is not on the same machine?
I am not sure I see the point of that...
If that is indeed its meaning, then how do I get around it in order to implement my scenario?
I've not found that bit of documentation you are referring to but from what I know of the STOMP implementation on the broker this seems incorrect. There shouldn't be any limit to the transport connector accepting connect requests from an outside host by default and I don't think the browser treats the websocket requests the same as it does other things like an Ajax case in terms of the same origin policy.
This probably a case that is best checked by actually trying it to see if it works, I've connected just fine from outside the same host using AMQP over websockets on ActiveMQ so I'd guess the STOMP stack should also work fine.
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 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).
I have spring + SockJS application, that is using ActiveMQ as message broker.
Can I have two sockets on same JSP page, one with sending and receiving ,and the other one only for receiving stomp messages(with lot of traffic).Is it guaranteed taht all messages will be delivered and received from both of sockets?
Regards,
Marko
While connected, yes. If you lose the connection at any point, you will lose everything between disconnecting and reconnecting. A related discussion of this issue comes to this conclusion.
Keep in mind that SockJS may result in different connections types on different clients, such as websocket, xhr, xdr, etc. On any connection SockJS will still use TCP and will still guarantee in-order delivery. However, non-websocket connections can take longer to trigger the close event, so you'll have longer black-out periods at the client. Almost any service needs to worry about this, because SockJS will sometimes fail to connect a websocket and "downgrade" to xhr (in my experience under high instantaneous load).
A good pattern is to add a reconnect in the close event handler. The close even is fired even when a connection fails to be established, which means you'll want a back-off latency on the reconnect to prevent a self-inflicted DDoS on your server. Separately, I add sequential packet numbers, and treat any client that detects a missing packet as a late joiner. (See this related ZMQ discussion on late joiners.) Your application needs may vary.
I'm looking into getting an openfire server started and setting up a strophe.js client to connect to it. My concern is that using http-bind might be costly in terms of performance versus making a straight on XMPP connection.
Can anyone tell me whether my concern is relevant or not? And if so, to what extend?
The alternative would be to use a flash proxy for all communication with OpenFire.
Thank you
BOSH is more verbose than normal XMPP, especially when idle. An idle BOSH connection might be about 2 HTTP requests per minute, while a normal connection can sit idle for hours or even days without sending a single packet (in theory, in practice you'll have pings and keepalives to combat NATs and broken firewalls).
But, the only real way to know is to benchmark. Depending on your use case, and what your clients are (will be) doing, the difference might be negligible, or not.
Basics:
Socket - zero overhead.
HTTP - requests even on IDLE session.
I doubt that you will have 1M users at once, but if you are aiming for it, then conection-less protocol like http will be much better, as I'm not sure that any OS can support that kind of connected socket volume.
Also, you can tie your OpenFires together, form a farm, and you'll have nice scalability there.
we used Openfire and BOSH with about 400 concurrent users in the same MUC Channel.
What we noticed is that Openfire leaks memory. We had about 1.5-2 GB of memory used and got constant out of memory exceptions.
Also the BOSH Implementation of Openfire is pretty bad. We switched then to punjab which was better but couldn't solve the openfire issue.
We're now using ejabberd with their built-in http-bind implementation and it scales pretty well. Load on the server having the ejabberd running is nearly 0.
At the moment we face the problem that our 5 webservers which we use to handle the chat load are sometimes overloaded at about 200 connected Users.
I'm trying to use websockets now but it seems that it doesn't work yet.
Maybe redirecting the http-bind not via Apache rewrite rule but directly on a loadbalancer/proxy would solve the issue but I couldn't find a way on how to do this atm.
Hope this helps.
I ended up using node.js and http://code.google.com/p/node-xmpp-bosh as I faced some difficulties to connect directly to Openfire via BOSH.
I have a production site running with node.js configured to proxy all BOSH requests and it works like a charm (around 50 concurrent users). The only downside so far: in the Openfire admin console you will not see the actual IP address of the connected clients, only the local server address will show up as Openfire get's the connection from the node.js server.