Can someone brief about the difference between these looking-similar techniques?
Websocket
Server sent events (SSE)
HTTP2's Server Pushing
I knew all these 3 are "pushing" response from server instead of requesting by the client.
At the first look, it seems all are same.I need to get more clarity about the differences.
Websockets: asynchronous communication in both directions. So far doesn't work well with HTTP/2, but efforts are ongoing to make it so. (For example WISH and websockets2-over-http2.)
SSE: server can notify the browser of events. Uses normal HTTP and works well even with HTTP/2. It's possible to emulate asynchronous communication in both directions with SSE by issuing notifications from client to server via regular POST requests, in HTTP/2 these requests go in the same socket with everything else for the same origin and therefore the cost of establishing a new connection can be avoided. However, there may be processing costs on the server side for processing a POST request which are greater than using native websockets.
HTTP/2 Push: absolutely unrelated to the two above, it is a mechanism for a server to push assets to the browser in advance. Possible application: sending CSSs and Javascripts while the PHP engine is creating the HTML. In theory, HTTP/2 Push and SSE can be combined to make events available to the browser without the initial round-trip delay.
Related
We have a requirement to to support 10k+ users, where every user initiate a request and waits for a response from the server (the response can take as long as 20-30 seconds to arrive). it is only one request from the client, and after a long processing by the server, a response will be transmitted and then the connection will disconnect.
in the background, the server will do some DB search and wait for other background processes to notify on completion before responding to the client.
after doing some research i figured out we will need to use something like the atmosphere framework to support websockets/sse event/long polling along with an asynchronous server like netty (=> nettosphere) or jetty.
As for my experience - mostly Java EE world and Tomcat server.
my questions are:
what will be easier to implement in regard to my experience and our requirement: atmosphere + netty or atmoshphere+jetty? which one can scale better, has an easier learning curve and easier to implement other java technologies?
how do u implement in atmosphere a response that is sent only to the originating client and not broadcast to the rest of the clients? (all the examples i found are broadcast).
how can i implement in netty (or jetty) when using the atmosphere framework our response? i.e., the client send a request, after it is received in the server some background processes are run, and when they finish i need to locate the connection and transmit the response. is that achievable?
Some thoughts:
At 10k+ users, with 20-30 second response latency, you likely hit file descriptor limits if using just 1 network interface. Consider a solution that uses multiple network interfaces.
Your description of your request/response can be handled entirely with standard Servlet 3.0, standard HTTP/1.1, Async request handling, and large timeouts.
If your clients are web browsers, and you don't start sending a response from the server until the 20-30 second window, you might hit browser idle timeouts.
Atmosphere and Cometd do the same things, supporting long duration connections, with connection technique fallbacks, and with logical channel APIs.
I believe the AKKA framework will handle this sort of need. I am looking at using it to handle scaling issues possibly with a RabbitMQ to help off load work to potentially other servers that may be added later to scale as needed.
Imagine I'm building an ordinary old website. Not a game, not a chat program, an ordinary website. Let's say it's a stack overflow clone.
The client side would simply make service calls to the server side. The server is essentially a dumb data store and never sends down HTML. The client handles all templating via javascript.
If I established a single websocket connection and did all requests through that, would I see a significant speedup over doing ajax requests?
The obvious advantage to using a single connection is that it only has to be established once. But how much time does that actually save? I know establishing a TCP connection can be costly, but in the grand scheme of things, does it matter?
I would not recommend websockets for webpages. HTTP 1.1 can reuse a TCP-connection for multiple requests, it's only HTTP 1.0 that had to use a new TCP connection for each request.
SPDY is probably a protocol that do what you are looking for. See SPDY: An experimental protocol for a faster web, but it's only supported by Chrome.
If you use websockets, the requests will not be cached.
One HTTP connection can only by used for one HTTP request at the same time. Say that a page requested a 100Kb document, nothing else will be send from the client to the server until that 100Kb document has been transferred. This is called head-of-line blocking. The client can establish an additional connection with the server, but there is also a limit on the amount of concurrent connections with the same server.
One of the primary reasons for developing SPDY and later HTTP/2 was solving this exact problem. However, support for SPDY and HTTP/2 is not yet as widespread as for WebSocket. WebSocket can get you there earlier because it supports multiple streams in full-duplex mode.
Once HTTP/2 is better supported it will be the preferred solution for this problem, but WebSocket will still be better for real-time web applications, where server needs to push data to the client.
Have a look at the N2O framework, it was created to address the problems I described above. In N2O WebSocket is used to send all assets associated with a page.
How much speed you could gain from using WebSocket instead of standard HTTP requests pretty much depends on your specific website: how often it requests data from the server, how big is a typical response, etc.
I've been working with websockets lately in detail. Created my own server and there's a public demo. I don't have such detailed experience or knowledge re: http. (Although since websocket requests are upgraded http requests, I have some.)
On my end, the server reports details of each hit. Among them are a bunch of http keep-alive requests. My server doesn't handle them because they're not websocket requests. But it got my curiosity up.
The whole big thing about websockets is that the connection stays alive. Then you can pass messages in both directions (simultaneously even). I've read that the Keep-Alive HTTP connection is a relatively new development (I don't know how many years in people time, just that it's only included in the latest standard - 1.1 - is that actually old now?)
I guess I can assume that there's a behavioral difference between the two or there would have been no reason for a websocket standard? What's the difference?
A Keep Alive HTTP header since HTTP 1.0, which is used to indicate a HTTP client would like to maintain a persistent connection with HTTP server. The main objects is to eliminate the needs for opening TCP connection for each HTTP request. However, while there is a persistent connection open, the protocol for communication between client and server is still following the basic HTTP request/response pattern. In other word, server side can't push data to client.
WebSocket is completely different mechanism, which is used to setup a persistent, full-duplex connection. With this full-duplex connection, server side can push data to client and client should be expected to process data from server side at any time.
Quoting corresponding entries on Wikipedia for reference:
1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_persistent_connection
2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebSocket
You should read up on COMET, a design pattern which shows the limits of HTTP Keep-Alive. Keep-Alive is over 12 years old now, so it's not a new feature of HTTP. The problem is that it's not sufficient; the client and server cannot communicate in a truly asynchronous manner. The client must always use a "hanging" request in order to get a message back from the server; the server may not just send a message to the client at any time it wants.
HTTP vs Websockets
REST (HTTP)
Resources benefit from caching when the representation of a resource changes rarely or multiple clients are expected to retrieve the resource.
HTTP methods have well-known idempotency and safety properties. A request is “idempotent” if it can be issued multiple times without resulting in unique outcomes.
The HTTP design allows for responses to describe errors with the request, with the resource, or to provide nuanced status information to differentiate between success scenarios.
Have request and response functionality.
HTTP v1.1 may allow multiple requests to reuse a single connection, there will generally be small timeout periods intended to control resource consumption.
You might be using HTTP incorrectly if…
Your design relies on a client polling the service often, without the user taking action.
Your design requires frequent service calls to send small messages.
The client needs to quickly react to a change to a resource, and it cannot predict when the change will occur.
The resulting design is cost-prohibitive. Ask yourself: Is a WebSocket solution substantially less effort to design, implement, test, and operate?
WebSockets
WebSocket design does not allow explicit or transparent proxies to cache messages, which can degrade client performance.
WebSocket protocol offers support only for error scenarios affecting the establishment of the connection. Once the connection is established and messages are exchanged, any additional error scenarios must be addressed in the messaging layer design, but WebSockets allow for a higher amount of efficiency compared to REST because they do not require the HTTP request/response overhead for each message sent and received.
When a client needs to react quickly to a change (especially one it cannot predict), a WebSocket may be best.
This makes the protocol well suited to “fire and forget” messaging scenarios and poorly suited for transactional requirements.
WebSockets were designed specifically for long-lived connection scenarios, they avoid the overhead of establishing connections and sending HTTP request/response headers, resulting in a significant performance boost
You might be using WebSockets incorrectly if..
The connection is used only for a very small number of events, or a very small amount of time, and the client does not - need to quickly react to the events.
Your feature requires multiple WebSockets to be open to the same service at once.
Your feature opens a WebSocket, sends messages, then closes it—then repeats the process later.
You’re re-implementing a request/response pattern within the messaging layer.
The resulting design is cost-prohibitive. Ask yourself: Is a HTTP solution substantially less effort to design, implement, test, and operate?
Ref: https://blogs.windows.com/buildingapps/2016/03/14/when-to-use-a-http-call-instead-of-a-websocket-or-http-2-0/
I was watching many presentations about Html 5 WebSockets , where server can initialize connection with client and push the data without the request from the client.
We don't need Polling etc.
And , I am curious , why Http was designed as a "pull" and not full duplex protocol in the first place ? What where the reasons behind that kind of decision ?
Because when http was first designed it was meant to be used to retrieve documents from a server. And the easiest way to do is when the client asks the server for a document and gets it delivered as response (or an error in case it does not exist). When you have push protocol that means the server would need to keep client connections around for potentially a long time creating more resource management problems - remember we are talking about early 1990s here.
Http was designed for simply retrieving hypertext documents from a server. There were no reasons to push anything to the client when the pages were just pure, static html without scripting capabilities.
Since there was no need at the time for pushing things back to the client, the protocol was kept simple.
HTTP is mainly a pull protocol—someone loads information on a Web server and
users use HTTP to pull the information from the server at their convenience. In particular,
the TCP connection is initiated by the machine that wants to receive the file.
Manytimes clients ask for features like instant messaging (IM) and other client-to-client (P2P) communication for their web apps. Typically how is this done in normal web browsers? For example I've seen demos of Google Wave (and Gmail) that are able to IM from a regular browser. Is this via HTTP? Or does XmlHttpRequest (AJAX) provide the necessary backend for such communication?
More than anything I wonder how can a server "wake up" the remote client, lets say for sending an IM? Or does the client have to keep "polling" the message server for new IMs?
Typically the browser will poll the server for new messages. One approach that is often done to make this more efficient is the 'long poll' (see also this link) - the server responds immediately if it has anything; otherwise, it waits, keeping the connection open for a while. If a message comes in, it immediately wakes up and sends it, otherwise it comes back with a 'nope, check back' after a few tens of seconds. The client them immediately redials to go back into the long-polling state.