what technology can i use to manage unstable internet connection in a Server-Client App. i know mainly PHP (+Zend Framework), learning C# & ASP.NET MVC. i heard WCF/MSMQ is something that can help... but how ... is there something PHP (which i am more familiar) can do? but it is also good to know a .NET alternative if its better
the background:
client***s*** will connect to server db to do CRUDs. but if the internet connection fails this will not be possible. so how do i fix this?
the solution used now was have localhost db's. at the end of the day, all clients will upload to server and morning download "consolidated" db from server. this is not foolproof as upload/download may still fail. and considering large amts of data transfered, it actually increases the chances.
UPDATE: is there a PHP/Zend Framework/MySQL replacement for MSMQ/WCF?
WCF can help, because it supports various technologies for reliable message transfer.
One thing that might help you is to have the clients make their data changes locally, then upload those changes to a reliable message queue. You would not upload all changes in a single transaction. You might upload 10 at a time, possibly one at a time. As the uploaded messages are processed on the server, the server would write the transaction results to another queue, unique to each client. After the upload (or maybe at the same time), the client would check that queue to see what the result of each upload was. If the result was success, then the client can remove their local database. If the result was a failure, then the client should try uploading it again.
Of course, you should always be careful that your attempts at error recovery don't make things worse. Too much retry traffic on a bad link may very well cause more traffic, which may itself need recovery, etc.
And, of course, the ultimate solution is to move towards links that are more reliable. Not necessarily faster, but just more reliable.
Related
In implementing a browser-based simple game involving multiple users, I have the server save the game state at certain sync points (not time-based but event-specific). I identify each state by an integer.
When a user refreshes his browser, the server provides the latest state and restores the content in the browser. However, in those few seconds while the browser is loading the latest content after browser-refresh, the state could change again. I do not know how to handle this situation because sending the next state will again raise the same issue.
I want a seamless refresh so none of the other players are impacted when one user refreshes his browser (or for that matter leaves and comes back).
The implementation language is not relevant. I use websockets to communicate between the browser and the server. The server is the intermediary for all communication between users (I am not using WebRTC data channels). What is the best way to sync the application content in multiple browsers?
This is indeed a programming-based question though no code is provided.
Forget the fact that your client exists in a browser. Let's just talk about replication.
The usual approach in databases is to separate snapshots from Write Access Logging (WAL) logs. When you bring a new client up, you select a snapshot and transfer that. Then when the client is ready it asks for WAL logs from that snapshot forward. The same mechanism is used after crashes. The last available snapshot is loaded, then the WAL log is replayed, then the database comes up.
I would suggest the same strategy. This does require efficient storage of snapshots. Some kind of log. And some kind of replay mechanism. Which is a lot of easy to mess up code. If you can use something existing, that would be good.
The first thing that I looked into was using Emscripten to compile Redis to JS, and then try to use Redis' built-in asynchronous replication to replicate to your browser. That may be possible, but the fact that Redis is single-threaded and wants to be a client-server is probably a showstopper.
The next best option that I found is that you can use https://isomorphic-git.org/. Here is how that could build what you need. You simply maintain your current state in a git repository, and keep a WAL log of everything that you've done with it. When a client connects, it clones the repository. Once done it connects to the websocket, tells you what commit it is at, and you send it the WAL log from that point forward. Locally in the browser you run those git commands. If the client simply loses its connection and then rejoins, it can do a git pull, and then follow the same strategy.
This will be a bunch of work for you. But a lot less work than implementing everything from scratch.
I have a browser plugin which will be installed on 40,000 dekstops.
This plugin will connect to a backend configuration file available via https, e.g. http://somesite/config_file.js.
The plugin is configured to poll this backend resource once/day.
But there is only one backend server. So if 40,000 endpoints start polling together the server might crash.
I could think of randomize the polling frenquency from the desktop plugins. But randomization still does not gurantee that there will not be a overload at the server.
Is using websocket in this scenario solves the scalability issue?
Polling once a day is very little.
I don't see any upside for Websockets unless you switch to Push and have more notifications.
However, staggering the polling does make a lot of sense, since syncing requests for the same time is like writing a DoS attack against your own server.
Staggering doesn't necessarily have to be random and IMHO, it probably shouldn't.
You could start with a fixed time and add a second per client ID, allowing for ~86K connections in 24 hours which should be easy for any server to handle.
As a side note, 40K concurrent connections might not as hard to achieve as you imagine.
EDIT (relating to the comments)
Websockets vs. Server Sent Events:
IMHO, when pushing data (vs. polling), I would prefer Websockets over Server Sent Events (SSE).
Websockets have a few advantages, such as client side communication which allows clients to ping the server and confirm that the connection is still alive.
The Specific Use-Case:
From the description in the question and the comments it seems that you're using browser clients with a custom plugin and that the updates you wish to install daily might require the browser to be active.
This raises different questions that effect the implementation (are the client browsers open all day? do you have any control over the client browsers and their environment? can you guarantee installation while the browser is closed?).
...
IMHO, you might consider having the client plugins test for an update each morning as they load for the first time during that day (first access).
People arrive at work in different times and they open their browsers for the first time at different schedules. So the 40K requests you're expecting will be naturally scattered across that timeline (probably a 20-30 minute timespan).
This approach makes sure that the browsers and computers are actually open (making the update possible) and that the update requests are staggered over a period of time (about 33.3 requests per second, if my assumption is correct).
If you're serving a pre-written static configuration file (perhaps updated by the server daily), avoiding dynamic content and minimizing any database calls, than 33 req/sec should be very easy to manage.
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'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.
We have a fairly standard client/server application built using MS RPC. Both client and server are implemented in C++. The client establishes a session to the server, then makes repeated calls to it over a period of time before finally closing the session.
Periodically, however, especially under heavy load conditions, we are seeing an RPC exception show up with code 1754: RPC_S_NOTHING_TO_EXPORT.
It appears that this happens in the middle of a session. The user is logged on for a while, making successful calls, then one of the calls inexplicably returns this error. As far as we can tell, the server receives no indication that anything went wrong - and it definitely doesn't see the call the client made.
The error code appears to have permanent implications, as well. Having the client retry the connection doesn't work, either. However, if the user has multiple user sessions active simultaneously between the same client and server, the other connections are unaffected.
In essence, I have two questions:
Does anyone know what RPC_S_NOTHING_TO_EXPORT means? The MSDN documentation simply says: "No interfaces have been exported." ... Huh? The session was working fine for numerous instances of the same call up until this point...
Does anyone have any ideas as to how to identify the real problem? Note: Capturing network traffic is something we would rather avoid, if possible, as the problem is sporadic enough that we would likely go through multiple gigabytes of traffic before running into an occurrence.
Capturing network traffic would be one of the best ways to tackle this issue. If you can't do that, could you dump the client process and debug with WinDBG or Visual Studio? Perhaps compare a dump when operating normally versus in the error state?