SSEs are advertised as a unidirectional communication tool to be used from server to client. I have a requirement to broadcast data to all clients and so i was wondering how SSEs behave on a low level. I cannot seem to find any low level information about SSEs online.
Primarily i would like to know if, after sending the data, does the server wait for a response from the client to confirm it has received the data before finishing the "send". That would mean that doing a broadcast using a for loop would be quiet dangerous and slow in which case websockets might be the better options.
Perhaps the implementation depends entirely on the language and framework? Is it not standardized?
Broadcast usually uses UDP which does not wait for a response. - - Broadcasting ip:port by socket server
.. says
UDP Packet: First four bytes as a magic number, next four bytes an IPv4 address (and you might want to add other things like a server name).
The magic number is just in case there is a collision with another application using the same port. Check both the length of the packet and the magic number.
Server would broadcast the packet at something like 30 second time intervals. (Alternatively you could have the server send a response only when a client sends a request via broadcast.)
So the client app would have to send a request back to the server app.
Different protocols would get different responses according the the underlying technology. eg HTTP uses responses extnsivly.
SSE and WebSockets are both over TCP, so there could be a wait before the socket could be used to send further data.
However, each client is a dedicated socket. So server-side you would be using threads or async coding (depending on the server-side language and its conventions). So looping through all the sockets to send a message to each client would be fine and quick.
Related
When I read about websockets, heartbeats are usually mentioned as a must have. MDN even writes about a special opcode for heartbeats.
But are heartbeats a mandatory part of websockets? Do I have to implement it or else my websockets will be terminated by the browsers or some other standards?
The RFC 6455, the current reference for the WebSocket protocol, defines some control frames to communicate state about the WebSocket:
Close: 0x8
Ping: 0x9
Pong: 0xA
Ping and Pong are used for heartbeat and allows you to check if the client is still responsive. See the quote below:
A Ping frame may serve either as a keepalive or as a means to
verify that the remote endpoint is still responsive.
But when the client gets a Ping, a Pong must be sent back to the server. See the quote:
Upon receipt of a Ping frame, an endpoint MUST send a Pong frame in
response, unless it already received a Close frame. It SHOULD
respond with Pong frame as soon as is practical.
Bottom line
When designing both client and server, supporting heartbeats is up to you. But if you need to check if the connection is still alive, Ping and Pong frames are the standard way to do it.
Just keep in mind that if a Ping is sent and a Pong is not sent back, one peer may assume that the other peer is not alive anymore.
It is mandatory or not depending on client and server implementations. If you are connected to a server that requires you to answer the PING with a PONG, you will be probably disconnected in case you don't reply. Same if you are the server and a client is sending you PING.
Server and client implementations vary (there are a myriad of them), but
the browser´s javascript client do not send PING, and do not provide any API to do so, although It replies to PINGs with PONGs.
Pings and Pongs are not mandatory. They are useful, since they allow the detection of dropped connections. (Without some traffic on the wire, there is no way to detect a dropped connection.)
Note that in the browser, WebSocket heartbeats are not accessible. If you require your browser client code to detect dropped connections, then you have to implement hearbeating on the application level.
I'm creating an IoT Device + Server system using .NET Micro Framework and ASP.NET WebAPI (Probably in Azure).
The IoT device needs to be able to frequently update the server with stats whilst also being able to receive occasional incoming commands from the server that would change its behaviour. In this sense, the device needs to act as both client and server itself.
My concern is getting the best balance between the security of the device and the load on the server. Furthermore, there must be a relatively low amount of latency between the server needing to issue a command and the device carrying it out; of the order of a few seconds.
As I see it my options are:
Upon connection to the internet, the device establishes a persistent TCP connection to the server which is then used for both polling and receiving commands.
The device listens on a port (e.g. HttpListener) for incoming commands whilst updating the server via frequent HTTP requests.
The device only ever polls the server with HTTP requests. The server uses the response to give the device commands.
The 2nd option seems to be the least secure as the device would have open incoming ports. The 1st option looks the most difficult to reliably implement as it would require low level socket programming. The 3rd option seems easy and secure but due to the latency requirements the device would need to poll every few seconds. This impacts the scalability of the system.
So at what frequency does HTTP polling create more overhead than just constantly keeping a TCP connection open? 5s? 3s? 1s? Or am I overstating the overhead of keeping a TCP connection open in ASP.NET? Or is there a completely different way that this can be implemented?
Thanks.
So at what frequency does HTTP polling create more overhead than just constantly keeping a TCP connection open? 5s? 3s? 1s?
There is nothing to do to keep a TCP connection open. The only thing you might need to do is to use TCP keep-alive (which have nothing to do with HTTP keep-alive!) in case you want to keep the connection idle (i.e no data to send) for a long time.
with HTTP your overhead already starts with the first request, since your data need to be encapsulated into a HTTP message. This overhead can be comparable small if the message is large or it can easily be much larger than the message itself for small messages. Also, HTTP server close the TCP connection after some idle time so you might need to re-establish the TCP connection for the next data exchange which is again overhead and latency.
HTTP has the advantage to pass through most firewalls and proxies, while plain TCP does not. You also get encryption kind of free with HTTPS, i.e. there are established standards for direct encrypted connection and for tunneling through a proxy.
WebSockets is something in between: you do a HTTP request and then upgrade HTTP to WebSocket. The initial overhead is thus as large as for HTTP but for the next messages the overhead is not that much higher than TCP. And you can do also WebSockets with HTTPS (i.e. wss:// instead of ws://). It passes through most simple firewalls and proxies, but more deeper inspection firewalls might still have trouble with it.
Setting up a TCP listener will be a problem if you have your IoT device behind some NAT router, i.e. the usual setup inside private or SoHo networks. To reach the device one would need to open a tunnel at the router from outside into the network, either by administrating the router by hand or with UPnP (which is often switched off for security reasons). So you would introduce too much problems for the average user.
Which means that the thing which the fewest problems for the customer is probably HTTP polling. But this is also the one with the highest overhead. Still mostly compatible are WebSockets which have less overhead and more problems but even less overhead can be reached with simple TCP to the server. TCP listener instead would cause too much trouble.
As for resources on the server side: each HTTP polling request might use new TCP connection but you can also reuse an existing one. In this case you could decide between more overhead and latency one the client side (new TCP connection for each request) which needs few resources on the server side and less overhead and latency on the client side which needs more resources on the server side (multiple HTTP requests per TCP connection). With WebSockets and plain TCP connection you always need more server side resources, unless your client will automatically re-establish the connection on loss of connectivity.
These days you should use a IOT Specific communication protocol over TLS 2.0 for secure light weight connections. For example AWS uses MQTT http://mqtt.org/ and Azure uses AMQP https://www.amqp.org/
The idea is you get a broker you can connect to securely then you use a messaging protocol with a topic to route messages to the proper devices. Also IBM has been using MQTT for a long time and routers now typically come with port 8883 open which is MQTT over TLS.
Good Luck!
Simply use SignalR to connect client and server. It provides you minimal latency without polling. The API is very simple to use.
Physically, this runs over WebSockets which are scalable to a large number of concurrent connections. If you don't have a need for more than 100k per Windows server this would not be a concern.
I am trying to create a Web Server of my own and there are several questions about working of Web servers we are using today. Questions are:
After receiving a HTTP request from a client through port 80, does server respond using same port 80?
If yes then while sending a large file say a pic in MB's, webserver will be unable to receive requests from other clients?
Is a computer port duplex or simplex? (Can it send and receive at the same time)?
If another port on server side is used to send response to client, then (if TCP is used, which is generally used), again 3-way handshaking will be done which will be overhead...
http://beej.us/guide/bgnet/output/html/singlepage/bgnet.html here is a good guide on what's going on with webservers, although it's in c but the concepts are all there. This will explain the whole client server relationship as well as some implementation details.
I'll just give a high level on what's going on:
Usually what happens is when your server gets a new request that comes in it creates a fork that will process it, that way you are not bogged down by each request, when the request comes in the child process is handed a new file to write to(again this is all implementation details).
So really you have one server waiting for requests and for each request it received it spawns a child to process to deal with this request. I'm sure there are much easier languages to implement this stuff than c(I had to do both a c and java server serving to either one in my past) but c really gets you to understand the things that are going on and I'm betting that is what you are looking for here
Now there are a couple of things to think about:
how you want the webserver to work. The example explains the parent child process.
Do you want to use tcp/UDP there are differences in the way to payload gets delivered.
You don't have to connect on port 80. that's just the default for web.
Hopefully the guide will help you.
Yes. The server sends the response using the TCP connection established by the client, so it also responds using the same port. The server can handle connections from multiple clients using the same port because TCP connections are identified by (local-ip, local-port, remote-ip, remote-port), so the server can even handle multiple connections from same client provided that the source ports are different.
There are different techniques you can use to be able to serve multiple clients at the same time. These include
using multiple processes or threads: when one is busy serving a client the others can serve other clients.
using events: the server listens for events from the OS: when it can write a block of data to a connection it writes it, when a new client connects it accepts the connection, ...
Frequently both approaches are be combined.
A TCP connection is duplex: you can send and receive at the same time. The HTTP protocol is based on a simple request-response model though: at any given time only one party is "talking."
Is a http end point suppose to respond to requests from a particular client in order that they are received?
What about if it doesn't make sense to in the case of requests handled by cluster behind a proxy or in requests handled with NIO where one request is finished faster than the other?
Is there a standard way of associating a unique id with each http request to associate with the response? How is this handled in clients like http componenets httpclient or curl?
The question comes down to the following case:
Suppose, I am downloading a file from a server and the request is not finished. Is a client capable of completing other requests on the same keep-alive connection?
Whenever a TCP connection is opened, the connection is recognized by the source and destination ports and IP addresses. So if I connect to www.google.com on destination port 80 (default for HTTP), I need a free source port which the OS will generate.
The reply of the web server is then sent to the source port (and IP). This is also how NAT works, remembering which source port belongs to which internal IP address (and vice versa for incoming connections).
As for your edit: no, a single http connection can execute one command (GET/POST/etc) at the same time. If you send another command while you are retreiving data from a previously issued command, the results may vary per client and server implementation. I guess that Apache, for example, will transmit the result of the second request after the data of the first request is sent.
I won't re-write CodeCaster's answer because it is very well worded.
In response to your edit - no. It is not. A single persistent HTTP connection can only be used for one request at once, or it would get very confusing. Because HTTP does not define any form of request/response tracking mechanism, it simply would not be possible.
It should be noted that there are other protocols which use a similar message format (conforming to RFC822), which do allow for this (using mechanisms such as SIP's cSeq header), and it would be possible to implement this in a custom HTTP app, but HTTP does not define any standard mechanism for doing this, and therefore nothing can be done that could be assumed to work everywhere. It would also present a problem with the response for the second message - do you wait for the first response to finish before sending the second response, or try and pause the first response while you send the second response? How will you communicate this in a way that guarantees messages won't become corrupted?
Note also that SIP (usually) operates over UDP, which does not guarantee packet ordering, making the cSeq system more of a necessity.
If you want to send a request to a server while another transaction is still in progress, you will need to create a new connection to the server, and hence a new TCP stream.
Facebook did some research into this while they were building their CDN, and they concluded that you can efficiently have 2 or 3 open HTTP streams at any one time, but any more than that reduces overall transfer time because of the extra packet overhead cost. I would link to the blog entry if I could find the link...
I need a way to detect a missing response to a long running HTTP POST request. This problem arises when the network infrastructure (firewalls, proxies, unplugged cables, etc.) drops the response packets. The server may detect this failure, but the client cannot send additional bytes after the POST to probe the state of the TCP connection. The failure may be limited to a single TCP connection. For example I may be able to subsequently open a new TCP connection to the server.
I'm looking for a solution that still uses HTTP POST and does not change the duration of the server side processing.
Some solutions that I can think of are:
Provide a side channel interface to retrieve request & response history. If the history lists the response as having been send (presumably resulting in a TCP error) but I have not yet received it within a reasonable time I can generate a local error.
Use an X header to request that the server deliver "spurious" 100 Continue provisional responses on a regular interval. If I fail to see an expected 100 Continue or a non-provisional response I can generate a local error.
Is there a state of the art solution for this problem?
It sounds to me like you are using Soap for something that would be much better done using a stateful connection, or a server side push technology.