I would like to understand the usage of 'Transfer-encoding: Chunked' in case of HTTP requests.
Is it common for requests to be chunked?
My thinking is no since requests need to be completely read before processing, it does not make sense to be sending chunked requests.
It is not that common, but it can be very useful for large request bodies.
My thinking is no since requests need to be completely read before processing, it does not make sense to be sending chunked requests.
(1) No, they don't need to be read completely.
(2) ...and the main reason to compress it to save bytes on the wire anyway.
For an HTTP agent acting as a reverse proxy or a forward proxy, so taking a message from one side and sending it on the other side, using a chunked transmission means you can send the parts of the message you have without storing it locally. You avoid the 'buffering' problems, slowdown and storage.
You also have some optimizations based on each actor preferred size of data blocks, like you could have an actor which likes sending packets of 8000 bytes, because that's the good number for his own kernel settings (tcp windows, internal http server buffer size, etc), while another actor on the message transmission using smaller chunks of 2048 bytes.
Finally, you do not need to compute the size of the message, the message will end on the end-of-stream marker, that's all. Which is also usefull if you are sending something which is compressed on the fly, you may not know the final size until everything is compressed.
Chunked transmission is used a lot. It is the default mode of most HTTP servers if you ask for HTTP/1.1 mode and not HTTP/1.0.
Related
Do downloads use HTTP? How can they resume downloads after they have been suspended for several minutes? Can they request a certain part of the file?
Downloads are done over either HTTP or FTP.
For a single, small file, FTP is slightly faster (though you'll barely notice a differece). For downloading large files, HTTP is faster due to automatic compression. For multiple files, HTTP is always faster due to reusing existing connections and pipelining.
Parts of a file can indeed be requested independent of the whole file, and this is actually how downloads work. This is a process known as 'Chunked Encoding'. A browser requests individual parts of a file, downloads them independently, and assembles them in the correct order once all parts have been downloaded:
In chunked transfer encoding, the data stream is divided into a series of non-overlapping "chunks". The chunks are sent out and received independently of one another. No knowledge of the data stream outside the currently-being-processed chunk is necessary for both the sender and the receiver at any given time.
And according to FTP vs HTTP:
During a "chunked encoding" transfer, the sending party sends a stream of [size-of-data][data] blocks over the wire until there is no more data to send and then it sends a zero-size chunk to signal the end of it.
This is combined with a process called 'Byte Serving' to allow for resuming of downloads:
Byte serving begins when an HTTP server advertises its willingness to serve partial requests using the Accept-Ranges response header. A client then requests a specific part of a file from the server using the Range request header. If the range is valid, the server sends it to the client with a 206 Partial Content status code and a Content-Range header listing the range sent.
Do downloads use HTTP?
Yes. Especially since major browsers had deprecated FTP.
How can they resume downloads after they have been suspended for several minutes?
Not all downloads can resume after this long. If the (TCP or SSL/TLS) connection had been closed, another one has to be initiated to resume the download. (If it's HTTP/3 over QUIC, then it's another story.)
Can they request a certain part of the file?
Yes. This can be done with Range Requests. But it require server-side support (especially when the requested resource is provided by a dynamic script).
That other answer mentioning chunked transfer had mistaken it for the underlaying mechanism of TCP. Chunked transfer is not designed for the purpose of resuming partial downloads. It's designed for delimiting message boundary when the Content-Length header is not present, and when the communicating parties wish to reuse the connection. It is also used when the protocol version is HTTP/1.1 and there's a trailer fields section (which is similar to header fields section, but comes after the message body). HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 have their own way to convey trailers.
Even if multiple non-overlapping "chunks" of the resource is requested, it's encapsulated in a multipart/* message.
I'm reading a book that looks at different web service architectures, including an overview of how the SOAP protocol can be implemented in via HTTP. This was interesting to me because I do a lot of WCF development and didn't realize how client/server communication was implemented.
Since protocols like TCP and whatever is lower than that have fixed maximum packet sizes and as such have to split messages into packets, I just assumed that HTTP was similar. Is that not the case?
I.e. If I make a GET/POST request with a 20MB body, will a single HTTP envelope be sent and reassembled on the server?
If this is the case, what is the largest practical size of an http request? i have previously configured Nginx servers to allow 20mb file transfers and I'm wondering if this is too high...
From HTTP specification point of view, there is no limit for HTTP payload. According to RFC7230:
Any Content-Length field value greater than or equal to zero is valid. Since there is no predefined limit to the length of a payload, a recipient MUST anticipate potentially large decimal numerals and prevent parsing errors due to integer conversion overflows.
However, to prevent attack via very long or very slow stream of data, a web server may reject such HTTP request and return 413 Payload Too Large response.
"Since protocols like TCP and whatever is lower than that have fixed maximum packet sizes and as such have to split messages into packets, I just assumed that HTTP was similar. Is that not the case?"
No. HTTP is an application level protocol and is totally different. As HTTP is based on TCP, when the data is transferring, it would automatically split into packets on TCP level. There is no need to split the request on HTTP level.
An HTTP body can be as large as you want it to be, there is no download size limit, the size limit is usually set for uploads, to prevent someone uploading massive files to your server.
You can ask for a section of a resource using the Range header, if you only want part of it.
IE had limits of 2 and 4 GB at times, but these have been fixed since. Source
I have a client side GUI app for human usage that consumes some SOAP web services and uses cURL as the underlying HTTP communication lib. Depending on the input, processing a request can take some large amount of time, even one hour. Neither the client nor server time out for that reason on their own and that's tested and works. Most of the requests get processed in some minutes anyway, so this is an edge case.
One of my users is forced to use a proxy between my client app and my server and for various reasons has no control over it. That proxy has a time out configured and closes the connection to my client after 4 minutes of no data transfer. So the user can (and did) upload data for e.g. 30 minutes, afterwards the server starts to process the data and after 4 minutes the proxy closes the connection, the server will silently continue to process the request, but the user is left with some error message AND won't get the processing result. My app already uses TCP Keep Alive, so that shouldn't be the problem, but instead the time out seems to be defined for higher level data. It works the same like the option read_timeout for squid, which I used to reproduce the behaviour in our internal setup.
What I would like to do now is start a background thread in my web service which simply outputs some garbage data to my client over all the time the request is processed, which is ignored by the client and tells the proxy that the connection is still active. I can recognize my client using the user agent and can configure if to ouput that data or not server side and such, so other clients consuming the web service wouldn't get a problem.
What I'm asking for is, if there's any HTTP compliant method to output such garbage data before the actual HTTP response? So e.g. would it be enough to simply output \r\n without any additional content over and over again to be HTTP compliant with all requesting libs? Or maybe even binary 0? Or some full fledged HTTP headers stating something like "real answer about to come, please be patient"? From my investigation this pretty much sounds like chunked HTTP encoding, but I'm not sure yet if this is applicable.
I would like to have the following, where all those "Wait" stuff is simply ignored in the end and the real HTTP response at the end contains Content-Length and such.
Wait...\r\n
Wait...\r\n
Wait...\r\n
[...]
HTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n
Server: Apache/2.4.23 (Win64) mod_jk/1.2.41\r\n
[...]
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><soap:Envelope[...]
Is that possible in some standard HTTP way and if so, what's the approach I need to take? Thanks!
HTTP Status 102
Isn't HTTP Status 102 exactly what I need? As I understand the spec, I can simply print that response line over and over again until the final response is available?
HTTP Status 102 was a dead-end, two things might work, depending on the proxy used: A NPH script can be used to regularly print headers directly to the client. The important thing is that NPH scripts normally bypass header buffers from the web server and can therefore be transferred over the wire as needed. They "only" need be correct HTTP headers and depending on the web server and proxy and such it might be a good idea to create incrementing, unique headers. Simply by adding some counter in the header name.
The second thing is chunked transfer-encoding, in which case small chunks of dummy data can be printed to the client in the response body. The good thing is that such small amount of data can be transferred over the wire as needed using server side flush and such, the bad thing is that the client receives this data and by default behaves as if it was part of the expected response body. That might break the application of course, but most HTTP libs provide callbacks for processing received data and if you print some unique one, the client should be able to filter the garbage out.
In my case the web service is spawning some background thread and depending on the entry point of the service requested it either prints headers using NPH or chunks of data. In both cases the data can be the same, so a NPH-header can be used for chunked transfer-encoding as well.
My NPH solution doesn't work with Squid, but the chunked one does. The problem with Squid is that its read_timeout setting is not low level for the connection to receive data at all, but instead some logical HTTP thing. This means that Squid does receive my headers, but it expects a complete HTTP header within the period of time defined using read_timeout. With my NPH approach this isn't the case, simply because by design I only want to send some garbage headers to ignore until the real headers arrive.
Additionally, one has to be careful about NPH in Apache httpd, but in my use case it works. I can see the individual headers in Squid's log and without any garbage after the response body or such. Avoid the Action directive.
Apache2 sends two HTTP headers with a mapped "nph-" CGI
Suppose I have a server (REST) application, which does not need to read fully incoming HTTP requests. Clients may send large HTTP requests of any size but I need only first X Kilobytes.
I would like to read only X Kilobytes and immediately close the connection. Does it make sense? Is it legal in terms of HTTP? What are alternatives?
I would like to read only X Kilobytes and immediately close the connection. Does it make sense?
Not for a REST-ful application.
Is it legal in terms of HTTP?
Yes, technically. In the HTTP protocol a server response of some kind is always expected for a complete transaction. This will be experienced by the client as a premature ending of the connection, i.e. an incomplete or aborted transaction.
What are alternatives?
What are you trying to accomplish?
If you just want to read the first X bytes of whatever is sent by any client who connects and then not bother to reply at all, then the HTTP protocol is not for you, never mind REST.
Although HTTP is ubiquitous it comes with its baggage of Headers which in my case is becoming more of a problem.
My data to be transferred is an iota of the HTTP header size.
Is there another protocol that I can
use which is still understood by the
browsers and other networks and doesn't come with the
baggage of HTTP?
Any other way to skip headers and add it at the destination so only a miniscule of data is transferred over the network?
No.
No.
Many HTTP headers are optional. A typical browser request is much larger than a minimal request, which might look like:
GET /doc HTTP/1.1
Host: example.com
Connection: close
(I can say with confidence that requests of this form work because I use them all the time when testing Web server response via telnet example.com 80.)
Possibly you can get useful results simply by omitting some headers.
HTTP requests can be quite small. As chaos points out in his answer, you don't really need to send many headers with a request. The only header that's essential is Host. I can simplify chaos' example a bit more by using HTTP 1.0, which doesn't feature persistent connections.
GET / HTTP/1.0
Host: example.com
(blank line is necessary)
The reply can be similarly simple
HTTP/1.0 200 OK
Content-Type: text/html
data content
In this case, the overhead of HTTP is about 40 bytes in the request and the response. A standard TCP packet is 1500 bytes so you have plenty of room left over in the response packet for the actual data.
There are other HTTP headers, and they do have value. You can include cache information and do conditional GETs. You can use an HTTP/1.1 persistent socket to make subsequent requests faster. Etc, etc. You don't have to use any of this stuff if you don't want, but one nice thing about HTTP is there's a standard way to do more complicated protocols when you need it.
As for doing minimal HTTP in JavaME, if you really care about every byte you may be best off writing your own simple HTTP client by working with a plain TCP socket. If you're talking to a known server you don't need to implement much at all. (If you're talking to arbitrary servers, you need to pay more attention to error handling, redirects, etc).
WebSockets are coming in HTML5 and should suit your needs. A standard HTTP connection can be renegotiated to change protocol to websockets. But I suspect the specification might be a bit young, but it might fit the bill.