I'm building an HTTP -> IRC proxy, it receives messages via an HTTP request and should then connect to an IRC server and post them to a channel (chat room).
This is all fairly straightforward, the one issue I have is that a connection to an IRC server is a persistent socket that should ideally be kept open for a reasonable period of time - unlike HTTP requests where a socket is opened and closed for each request (not always true I know). The implication of this is that a message bound for the same IRC server/room must always be sent via the same process (the one that holds a connection to the IRC server).
So I basically need to receive the HTTP request on my web processes, and then have them figure out which specific worker process has an open connection to the IRC server and route the message to that process.
I would prefer to avoid the complexity of a message queue within the IRC proxy app, as we already have one sitting in front of it that sends it the HTTP requests in the first place.
With that in mind my ideal solution is to have a shared datastore between the web and worker processes, and to have the worker processes maintain a table of all the IRC servers they're connected to. When a web process receives an HTTP request it could then look up the table to figure out if there is already a worker with a connection the the required IRC server and forward the message to that, or if there is no existing connection it could effectively act as a load balancer and pick an appropriate worker to forward the message to so it can establish and hold a connection to the IRC server.
Now to do this it would require my worker processes to be able to start an HTTP server and listen for requests from the web processes. On Heroku I know only web processes are added to the public facing "routing mesh" which is fine, what I would like to know is is it possible to send HTTP requests between a web and worker process internally within Herokus network (outside of the "routing mesh").
I will use a message queue if I must be as I said I'd like to avoid it.
Thanks!
Related
I'm implementing a distributed system for a project and am a bit confused as to how I should properly implement the Req/Res pattern. Basically I have a few endpoints that will send a request to a client for processing tasks and responding.
So basically:
Incoming request is received
The endpoint opens a req and res socket type with the broker
Broker receives the request, proxies it to an available worker
Worker responds and the endpoint receives the processed value, reports it back via the endpoint.
I've found a decent load balance broker script here: http://zguide.zeromq.org/js:lbbroker. There's also an async client/server pattern I'm interested in implementing: http://zguide.zeromq.org/js:asyncsrv which I might adapt into a load balanced implementation.
My question is perhaps a bit simplistic but, would each endpoint open a new socket on EVERY request or maintain and open socket for every request? That means there would be n connections for every request made to the endpoint.
You'd keep the sockets open, there's no need to close them after each request. And there'd be a single socket one every endpoint (client and server). At the server end you read a request from the socket, and write your response back to the socket; zmq takes care of ensuring that the response goes back from the right client.
I am learning about: Client/Server Architecture (more concretely the characteristics). I have a question:
"Asymmetrical protocols: there is a many-to-one relationship between
clients and a server. Clients always initiate a dialog by requesting a
service. Servers wait passively for requests from clients." (Source:
https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E13203_01/tuxedo/tux80/atmi/intbas3.htm)
QUESTION: I do not understand, I see that like SYMMETRICAL.
For example: A client request a service (web page) to a server (web server), but before this request the server was waiting passively until it received a request from client, just in that moment there is a connection between client and server, the server says "here you have the web page which you requested". For that moment I think it is SYMMETRICAL.
So, why is it asymmetrical?
There is a many to one relation between clients and server, so there is a single server and many clients but a single server per client.
The client actively sends requests, while the server serves the request and does not initiate requests on its own.
The client is active and the server is passive, so it is assymetrical.
I am new to go and trying to learn it by replacing a nodejs server. My nodejs server had the following components:
It received a websocket message from a client. The client would provide a unique ID and a key for the message. The server would process the message based on the key (much like a REST interface would) and return a message to the client with the unique ID so that the client would know
which message the server was responding to.
For some of the messages, the server would spawn an external process (one for each connection). The server would then act as a "client" to the spawned process, sending JSON messages with unique IDs and receiving back data. The server in this instance acts as an intermediary between the spawned process and the client.
On node it was trivial to get this to work generically. I simply added the spawned process to the connection in my "main" and used callbacks in the main. The websocket server module and the module governing the spawned process communication had no direct interaction and were completely generic.
However, while I have a websocket package and a spawn package that work well in go, I haven't been able to figure out a good way to generically create a spawned process per websocket connection. I've thought of passing callbacks and inits but this method seems hackish. I recognize that node and go probably require different strategies in programming but I can't think of a good "go" way of doing this. I welcome any suggestions!
You describe how http protocol works, means request-response. If that all you need you may feel good with just keep-alive connections. Websocket is async in nature, messages aren't assume responses. Use-case is server-send-events for example.
In Go server uses fire-and-forget strategy. It accepts connection, spawns goroutine to handle it, forgets it and listens for a new. Spawned goroutine upgrades connection to websocket and then serves client itself without any intermediary.
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'm new to ZeroMQ and trying to figure out a design issue. My scenario is that I have one or more clients sending requests to a single server. The server will process the requests, do some stuff, and send a reply to the client. There are two conditions:
The replies must go to the clients that sent the request.
If the client disconnects, the server should queue messages for a period of time so that if the client reconnects, it can receive the messages it missed.
I am having a difficult time figuring out the simplest way to implement this.
Things I've tried:
PUB/SUB - I could tag replies with topics to ensure only the subscribers that sent their request (with their topic as their identifier) would receive the correct reply. This takes care of the routing issue, but since the publisher is unaware of the subscribers, it knows nothing about clients that disconnect.
PUSH/PULL - Seems to be able to handle the message queuing issue, but looks like it won't support my plan of having messages sent to specific clients (based on their ID, for example).
ROUTER/DEALER - Design seemed like the solution to both, but all of the examples seem pretty complex.
My thinking right now is continuing with PUB/SUB, try to implement some sort of heartbeat on the client end (allowing the server to detect the client's presence), and when the client no longer sends a heartbeat, it will stop sending messages tagged with its topic. But that seems sub-optimal and would also involve another socket.
Are there any ideas or suggestions on any other ways I might go about implementing this? Any info would be greatly appreciated. I'm working in Python but any language is fine.
To prepare the best proposition for your solution, more data about your application requirements. I have made a little research about your conditions and connnect it with my experience about ZMQ, here I present two possibilities:
1) PUSH/PULL pattern in two direction, bigger impact on scalability, but messages from server will be cached.
Server has one PULL socket to register each client and get all messages from clients. Each message should have client ID to for server knowledge where send response.
For each client - server create PUSH socket to send responses. Socket configuration was sent in register message. You can use also REQ/REP pattern for register clients (assign socket number).
Each client has own PULL socket, which configuration was sent to server in register message.
It means that server with three clients required to (example port numbers in []):
server: 1 x PULL[5555] socket, 3 x PUSH[5560,5561,5562] sockets (+ optional 1 X REQ[5556] socket for registrations, but I think it depends how you prepare client identity)
client: 1 x PUSH[5555] socket, 1 x PULL[5560|5561|5562] (one per client) (+ optional 1 X REP[5556])
You have to connect server to multiple client sockets to send responses but if client disconnects, messages will not lost. Client will get their own messages when it reconnect to their PULL socket. The disadvantage is requirements of creating few PUSH sockets on server side (number of clients).
2) PUB/SUB + PUSH/PULL or REQ/REP, static cocket configuration on server side (only 2), but server has to prepare some mechanism for retransmit or cache messages.
Server create PUB socket and PULL or REQ. Client register it identity by PULL or REQ socket. server will publish all messages to client with this identity as filter. Server use monitor() function on PUB socket to count number of connected and disconnected clients (actions: 'accept' and 'disconnect'). After 'disconnect' action server publish message to all clients to register again. For clients which not re-register, server stop publish messages.
Client create SUB socket and PUSH or REQ to register and send requests.
This solution requires maybe some cache on server side. Client could confirm each message after get it from SUB socket. It is more complicated and have to be connected with your requirement. If you just would like to know that client lost message. Client could send timestamps of last message received from server during registration. If you need guarantee that clients get all messages, you need some cache implementation. Maybe other process which subscribe all messages and delete each confirmed by client.
In this solution server with three clients required to (example port numbers in []):
server: 1 x PUB[5555] socket, 1 x REP or PULL[5560] socket + monitoring PUB socket
client: 1 x SUB[5555] socket and own identity for filter, 1 x REQ or PUSH[5560] socket
About monitoring you could read here: https://github.com/JustinTulloss/zeromq.node#monitoring (NodeJS implementation, but Python will be similar)
I think about other patterns, but I am not sure that ROUTER/DEALER or REQ/REP will cover your requirements. You should read more about patterns, because each of it is better for some solutions. Look here:
official ZMQ guide (a lot of examples and pictures)
easy ROUTER/DEALER example: http://blog.scottlogic.com/2015/03/20/ZeroMQ-Quick-Intro.html