Can somebody explain what ajax-push is? From what I understand it involves leaving HTTP connections open for a long time and reconnecting as needed. It seems to be used in chat systems a lot.
I have also heard when using ajax-push in Java it is important to use something with the NIO-connetors or grizzle serlvet api? Again, I'm just researching what it exactly.
In normal AJAX (call it pull) you ask the server for something and you get it immediately. This is fine when you want to get some data from the server now. But what if something happens on the server and the server wants to push that event to the client(s)?
Technically this is implemented using so called long polling - the browser opens the HTTP connection and waits for the response. As long as there is nothing interesting on the server side, it waits. But when something happens, the server sends the response and the client receives it immediately. This is a huge advantage over normal polling where you ask the server every few seconds - it generates a lot of traffic and still introduces noticeable latency.
The only problem with this approach is the number of pending HTTP connections. Old-school Java servlet containers aren't quite capable of handling such amount of connections due to one-thread-per-connection limitation - they quickly run out of memory. Even though the HTTP threads aren't doing anything (waiting for some other part of the system to wake them up and give them the response), they occupy memory.
However there are plenty of solutions nowadays:
Tomcat NIO connectors
Atmosphere Ajax Push/Comet library
Servlet 3.0 #Async (most portable)
Container-specific features, but Servlet 3.0, if available, should be considered superior.
Related
Oh the joyous question of HTTP vs WebSockets is at it again, however even after quit a bit of reading on the hundreds of versus blog posts, SO questions, etc, etc.. I'm still at a complete loss as to what I should be working towards for our application. In this post I will be supplying information on application functionality, and the types of requests/responses used in our application currently.
Currently our application is a sloppy piece of work, thrown together using AngularJS and AJAX requests to a Apache server running PHP, namely XAMPP. With the launch of our application I've noticed that we're having problems with response times when the server is under any kind of load. This probably has something to do with the sloppy architecture of our server, the hardware, and the fact that our MySQL database isn't exactly optimized.
However, with such a loyal fanbase and investors seeing potential in our application and giving us a chance to roll out a 2.0 I've been studying hard into how to turn this application into a powerhouse of low latency scalability. Honestly the best option would be hire someone with experience, but unfortunately I'm a hobbyist, and a one-man-army without much experience.
After some extensive research, I've decided on writing the backend using NodeJS this time. However I'm having a hard time deciding on HTTP or Websockets. Here's the types of transactions that are done between the Server/Client.
Client sends a request to the server in JSON format. The request has a few different things.
A request id (For processing logic based on the request)
The data associated with the request ID.
The server receives the request, polls the database (if necessary) and then responds to the client in JSON format. Sometimes the server is serving files to the client. Namely images in Base64 format.
Currently the application (When being used) sends a request to the server every time an interface is changed, which on average for our application is once every few seconds. Every action on our interfaces sends another request to the server. The application also sends requests to check for notifications/messages every 8 seconds, (or two seconds depending on if they're on the messaging interface).
Currently here are the benefits I see of a stated connection over a stateless connection with our application.
If the connection is stated, I can eliminate the requests for notifications and messages, as the server can just tell the client whenever one comes available. This can eliminate x(n)/4 requests per second to the server alone.
Handling something like a disconnection from the server is as simple as attempting to reconnect, opposed to handling timeouts/errors per request, this would only be handled on the socket.
Additional security can be obtained by removing security keys for database interaction, this should prevent the possibility of Hijacking(?) of a session_key and using it to manipulate or access another users data. The session_key is only needed due to there being no state in the AJAX setup.
However, I'm someone who started learning programming through TCP game server emulation. So I understand some benefits of a STATED connection, while I don't understand the benefits of a STATELESS connection very much at all. I know they both have their benefits and quirks, but I'm curious what would be the best approach for us.
We're mainly looking for Scalability, as we had a local application launch and managed to bottleneck at nearly 10,000 users in under 48 hours. Luckily I announced this as a BETA and the users are cutting me a lot of slack after learning that I did it all on my own as a learning project. I've disabled registrations while looking into improving the application's front and backend.
IMPORTANT:
If using WebSockets, would we be able to asynchronously download pictures from the server like we can with AJAX? For example, I can make 5 requests to the server using AJAX for 5 different images, and they will all start downloading immediately, using a stated connection would I have to wait for each photo to be streamed before moving to the next request? Would this only bottle-neck a single user, or every user that is waiting on a request to be completed?
It all boils down on how your application works and how it needs to scale. I would use bare WebSockets rather than any wrapper, since it is an already easy to use API and your hands won't be tied when you need to scale out.
Here some links that will give you insight, although not concrete answers to your questions because as I said, it depends on your expectations.
Hard downsides of long polling?
WebSocket/REST: Client connections?
Websockets, and identifying unique peers[PHP]
How HTML5 Web Sockets Interact With Proxy Servers
If your question is Should I use HTTP over Websockets ?, the response is: You should not.
Even if it is faster because you don't lose time opening the connection, you lose also all the HTTP specification like verbs (GET, POST, PATCH, PUT, ...), path, body, and also response, status code. This seams simple but you'll have to re-implement all or part of these protocol things.
So you should use Ajax, as long as it is one ponctual request.
When you need to make an ajax request every 2 seconds, you need in fact that the server sends you data, not YOU request server to check Api change (if changed). So this is a sign that you should implement a websocket server.
I have a service being load tested by a third party. A few minutes after starting, we start to see requests hanging for a very long period of time and the caller ultimately times out (after 60 seconds).
They are testing with 15 users with each user using two devices at once, so a total of 30 connections.
The service is a simple façade to a more complex operation, calling an external system. Benchmarking our communications to the external system looks as though everything is responding in the time we would expect (sub 200ms).
The IIS logs reveals a bunch of very high requests (> 200sec) which ultimately do return a 200 and have Win32 error code ERROR_NETNAME_DELETD (error 64). I have checked the Service Log and can match up the response to the request (based on the SOAP message id) and can see that we do eventually respond with the correct information (although the client has long given up).
Any ideas as to what could be causing this behavior? We're hosting in IIS using wsHttpBinding and we're using WS-Security with x509 certificates (message & transport encryption).
We don't have benchmark logging inside of our service but the code is a very simple mapping of the WCF request to the server request, making the request, and mapping the response to the WCF response. We do this manually and there is no parsing involved (straight assignments).
After a detailed investigation, including getting Microsoft support involved we were hitting up against the serviceThrottling defaults, specifically the maxConcurrentSessions. We determined this from perfmon - there is a counter for this. We were unsure as to why we saw this as the service behaved when called with a .NET client.
It turns out that the Java consumer of this application, using CXF, was not respecting the WSDL (specifically the bit about WS-SecureConversation) and closing sessions out when it closed its connection.
Our solution was to jack up the maxConcurrentSessions to a high number, set the inactivityTimeout down low (to a minute) to force session abandonment. In addition, we set establishSecurityContext to false to avoid the WSS negotiation consuming an additional session.
The solution is inelegant as the service logs are littered with errors about forced session closures, but it fixed the issue we were seeing here. Unfortunately we had a requirement for WS-Security so our solution needed to stick with that.
I hope this helps someone as this was an interesting and time consuming problem to pin down.
It seems this is a common question/problem but despite checking out a number of proposed solutions nothing worked for us so far.
The app
It's a simple chat app, that puts a new interface on an existing app's JSON library. We proxy all the calls to their app to avoid x-domain restrictions (IE8).
ASP.net MVC3 App;
It's hosted in IIS6, W2K3 SP2. DEV svr has 1gig ram, TEST svr has 4gig ram.
The problem
When we approach 20 concurrent users, requests start lagging - no issues in Event Viewer to be found. It looks like calls are just queued. There are NO 503's returned.
What we've tried
We're using AsyncController to long-poll a 3rd party webservice for results
Hosted in IIS6
We're using the TPL to call their service in our AsyncController method
We've modified processModel and set maxWorkerThreads=100.
We've looked at this how-to but the HTTP.SYS config looks to service an infinite number of threads so we haven't bothered adding the reg keys.
The 3rd party service can handle lots of concurrent requests (and is in a web farm, so we're fairly confident we're the weakest link)
what are we missing? - any help greatly appreciated
Well... almost four weeks later and I thought I'd update this in case anyone wants to find out what helped us overcome these limitations (we're cramming around 100 simul connections on our DEV server, 1gig Xeon).
AsyncControllers
If you've got a potentially long waiting request (i.e. long polling) then use them.
Feel free to use TaskFactory but be sure to mark it as a long running process, if there is risk you could exception in your thread, be sure to use ContinueWith so you can decrement the operations, and return the error to your caller.
ServicePointManager
If you're making downstream calls (i.e. WebService/3rd party API) then make sure you have increased DefaultConnectionLimit from the default of 2 simultaneous connections.
A rough guide is 8 * Num cores so you don't starve outgoing connection resources.
See this MSDN article on DefaultConnectionLimit for more info.
IOCP vs RestSharp
I love RestSharp's API, it's fantastic but it's probably meant more for client side programming, not for proxying requests. My mistake!! Use HttpWebRequest and the Begin/End methods to make use of IOCP
If you're looking to reverse proxy or url rewrite, check out URL Rewriter, a great library available freely on CodePlex
In the end, our issue wasn't with incoming requests, it was with requests being proxied to a third party, we weren't supplying enough connections and thus they all queued up lagging the whole system. Happy to say after lots of reading, investigation and coding we've resolved it.
after an entire day of searches, I would to talk about the best solution for an online chat.
This is what I know:
Ajax poll is the old, bandwith consuming, and not scalable way of doing it. It makes a request for new data to the server every X seconds. This implies one database query every X seconds * number_of_connected_users.
Reverse Ajax and one of its application (comet) requires a customized web-server or a dedicated comet server which can handle the number_of_connected_users amount of long-time http connections.
My actual server is: 1 Xeon CPU, 1 GB of RAM and 1 Gb/s of bandwith. The server is a virtual machine (hence highly scalable).
I need a solution that could scale with the server and the future growing user base.
My doubts are:
How much the ajax polling method can impact my bandwith usage?
In which way can I optimize the ajax polling to make a db query only when necessary?
Can the comet server be run in the same machine of the web-server (Apache)?
With the comet way, I still need an interval to do the queries on the database and then send the response, so where is the real-time?
With my actual server, can the comet way work?
Thank you in advance.
You should never use polling if you can get away with it. It clogs up resources on both the server and client. The server must make more database requests with polling, more checks to see if data has changed.
The ajax polling method also generates more unneccessary requests. With polling, you use memory and CPU. Comet (if it's done properly) uses only memory.
The comet server can probably not run under Apache. Apache does not seem to be designed for long running requests. I'd recommend implementing your comet server in ruby (using EventMachine) an example, in Python (using Twisted), or in C.
I don't see why you need to have an interval to do database queries. When you make a change, you can just tell your comet server to notify the neccessary users of the change.
I'm writing my website in PHP.
So, I need to run a server (like twisted) and write my chat application in python?
This app should take care of incoming ajax request and push new data to clients.
If I understand well, this approach doesn't need a database, right?
I'm trying to create a small and basic "ajax" based multiplayer game. Coordinates of objects are being given by a PHP "handler". This handler.php file is being polled every 200MS, by using ajax.
Since there is no need to poll when nothing happens, I wonder, is there something that could do the same thing without frequent polling? Eg. Comet, though I heard that you need to configure server side applications for Comet. It's a shared webserver, so I can't do that.
Maybe prevent the handler.php file from even returning a response if nothing has to be changed at the client, is that possible? Then again you'd still have the client uselessly asking for a response even though something hasn't changed yet. Basically, it should only use bandwidth and sever resources if something needs to be told to the client, eg. the change of an object's coordinates.
Comet is generally used for this kind of thing, and it can be a fragile setup as it's not a particularly common technology so it can be easy not to "get it right." That said, there are more resources available now than when I last tried it ~2 years ago.
I don't think you can do what you're thinking and have handler.php simply not return anything and stop execution: The web server will keep the connection open and prevent any further polling until handler.php does something (terminates or provides output). When it does, you're still handling a response.
You can try a long polling technique, where your AJAX allows a very large timeout (e.g. 30 seconds), and handler.php spins without responding until it has something to report, then returns. (You'll want to make sure the spinning is not resource-intensive). If handler.php "expires" and nothing happens, have it exit and let AJAX poll again. Since it only happens every 30 seconds, it will be a huge improvement over ~5 times a second. That would keep your polling to a minimum.
But that's the sort of thing Comet is designed for.
As Ajax only offers you a client server request model (normally termed pull, rather than push), the only way to get data from the server is via requests. However a common technique to get around this is for the server to only respond when it has new data. So the client makes a request, the server hangs on to that request until something happens and then replies. This gets around the need for frequent polling even when the data hasn't changed as you only need the client send a new request after it gets a response.
Since you are using PHP, one simple method might be to have the PHP code call the sleep command for 200ms at a time between checks for data changes and then return the data to the client when it does change.
EDIT: I would also recommend having a timeout on the request. So if nothing happens for say 2 seconds, a "no change" message is sent back. That way the client knows the server is still alive and processing its request.
Since this is tagged “html5”: HTML5 has <eventsource> and WebSocket, but the implementation side is still in the future tense in practice.
Opera implemented an old version of <eventsource> called <event-source>.
Here's a solution - use a SaaS comet provider, such as WebSync On-Demand. No server resources to worry about, shared hosting or not, since it's all offloaded, and you can push out the information as needed.
Since it's SaaS, it'll work with any server language. For PHP, there's already a publisher written and ready to go.
The server must take part in this. Check with the hosting provider what modules are available. Or try to convince them to support Comet.
Maybe you should consider a small Virtual Private Server (VPS) for this.
One thing to add on the long polling suggestions: If you're on a shared server, this solution will have limited scalability, as each active long poll will keep a connection (and a server-side process to service that connection) active. Your provider most likely has limits (either policy-defined or de facto) on the number of connections you can have open at a time, so you'll hit a wall if you have more sessions/windows than that playing concurrently.