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
Related
I came across the term HTTP. I have done some research and wanted to ensure that I correctly understood the term.
So, is it true that HTTP, in simple words, a letter containing information in the language that both client and server can understand.
Then, that letter is sent to the server thanks to TCP/IP which serves as a car that takes that letter to the server.
Then, after the letter is delivered to the server, the server reads the content of the letter and if it is GET request, the server takes the necessary data and ATTACHES that data to the letter and sends back to the client via again TCP/IP. But if it was POST request then the client ATTACHES the DATA to the letter and sends it to the server so that it saves that data in the database.
Is that true?
Basically, it is true.
However, the server can decide what to do if it is a GET or POST or any other request(it doesn't need to e.g. append it to a file).
I will show you some additional information/try to explain it in my words:
TCP is another communication protocol protocol. It allows a client to open a connection to a server and they can communicate afterwards.
HTTP(hyper text transfer protocol) builds up on TCP.
At first, the client opens a connection to the server.
After that, the client sends the HTTP Request. The first line contains the type of the request, the path and the version. For example, it could be GET / HTTP/1.1.
The next part of the request contains the Request parameters. Every parameter is a line. The parameters are sent like the following: paramName: paramValue
This part of the request ends with an empty line.
If it is a POST Request, query parameters are added next. If it is a GET Request, these query parameters are added with the path(e.g. /index.html?paramName=paramValue)
After rescieving the Request, the server sends a HTTP Response back to the client.
The first line of the response contains the HTTP version, the status code and the status message. For example, it could be HTTP/1.1 200 OK.
Then, just like in the request, the response parameters are following. For example Content-Length: 1024.
The response parameters also end with an empty line.
The last part of the response is the body/content. For example, this could be the HTML code of the website you are visiting.
Obviously, the length of the content/body of the response has to match the Content-Length parameter(in bytes).
After that, the connection will be closed(normally). If the client to e.g. request resources, it will send another request. The server has NO POSSIBILITY to send data to the client after that unless the client sends another request(websockets can bypass this issue).
GET is meant to get the content of a site A web browser will send a GET request if you type in a URL. POST can be used to update a site but in fact, the server can decide that. POST can be also used if the server doesn't want query parameters to be shown in the address bar.
There are other methods like PATCH or DELETE that are used by some APIs.
Some important status codes (and status messages) are:
200 OK (everything went well)
204 No content (like ok but there is no body in the response)
400 Bad Request (something is wrong with the Request)
404 Not found (the requested file(the path) was not found on the server)
500 Internal server error (An error occured while processing the request)
Every status code beginning with 1 is related to inform the client of something.
If it is starting with 2, everything went right.
Status code beginning with 3 forward the client to another site.
If it starts with 4, there is a error on the client side.
Codes starting with 5 represent an error that occured on the server side.
TCP is a network protocol that establishes a connection with the server over a network (or the Internet) and allows two-way communication. The HTTP will traffic inside this TCP tunnel. TCP is a very useful protocol that helps keep things sane, it ensures data packets are read in the correct order and that packets that went missing during transmission are sent again.
Sometimes there will be another protocol layer between HTTP and TCP, called SSL. It is responsible for encrypting the data that traffics over TCP, so that it is transmitted safely over unsafe networks. This is know as HTTPS, and is just HTTP but using this additional layer.
Although almost always true, HTTP doesn't necessarily uses TCP. UPnP requests use HTTP over UDP, a network protocol that uses standalone packets instead of a connection.
HTTP is a plain text protocol, meaning it's designed in such a way that a human can understand it without using any tools. This is very convenient for learning.
If you're using Firefox or Chrome, you can press Ctrl-Shift-C to open the Developer Tools, and under the Network tab you will see every HTTP request your browser is making, see exactly what's the request, what the server answered etc, and get a better view of how this protocol works.
Explaining it in details is... too extensive for this answer. But as you will see it's not that complicated.
Pipelining is a technique in HTTP/1.1 where multiple requests are sent at once without waiting for a response, on a keepalive connection. The responses are then returned in order by the server, without waiting for a round-trip-time between a response being sent and the next request being received.
HTTP/2 adds a feature called multiplexing, which similarly allows the client to send off multiple requests at once. In this case however, the server can send responses all at once.
Without control of the server, Can I achieve something similar to pipelining (i.e. receiving responses in order one-at-a-time without latency between responses) when using HTTP/2?
This would be useful when downloading many large files, without much available memory to buffer several partially-completed responses.
Without control of the server, Can I achieve something similar to pipelining (i.e. receiving responses in order one-at-a-time without latency between responses) when using HTTP/2?
No you cannot, unless the server cooperates (for example the server can be configured to handle requests sequentially or something similar).
As a side note, while request pipelining was allowed in HTTP/1.1, it has always been considered a bad idea and as such made irrelevant by all major implementations (i.e. browsers don't do it, servers don't really support it, etc.).
The main problem is error handling and buggy proxy servers.
HTTP/2 allows a client to set priorities on requests so that requests are processed in priority order.
However, this feature is optional and servers may not implement it, so again you need to carefully choose/configure the server in order to get the behavior you want.
If you can control a little the server side, for both HTTP/1.1 and HTTP/2, a better solution would be to ask the server for all the files in a single request, and have the server reply with a multipart response.
I’m investigating a problem where Tomcat (7.0.90 7.0.92) returns a response with no HTTP headers very occasionally.
According to the captured packets by Wireshark, after Tomcat receives a request it just returns only a response body. It returns neither a status line nor HTTP response headers.
It makes a downstream Nginx instance produce the error “upstream sent no valid HTTP/1.0 header while reading response header from upstream”, return 502 error to the client and close the corresponding http connection between Nginx and Tomcat.
What can be a cause of this behavior? Is there any possibility which makes Tomcat behave this way? Or there can be something which strips HTTP headers under some condition? Or Wireshark failed to capture the frames which contain the HTTP headers? Any advice to narrow down where the problem is is also greatly appreciated.
This is a screenshot of Wireshark's "Follow HTTP Stream" which is showing the problematic response:
EDIT:
This is a screen shot of "TCP Stream" of the relevant part (only response). It seems that the chunks in the second response from the last looks fine:
EDIT2:
I forwarded this question to the Tomcat users mailing list and got some suggestions for further investigation from the developers:
http://tomcat.10.x6.nabble.com/Tomcat-occasionally-returns-a-response-without-HTTP-headers-td5080623.html
But I haven’t found any proper solution yet. I’m still looking for insights to tackle this problem..
The issues you experience stem from pipelining multiple requests over a single connection with the upstream, as explained by yesterday's answer here by Eugène Adell.
Whether this is a bug in nginx, tomcat, your application, or the interaction of any combination of the above, would probably be a discussion for another forum, but for now, let's consider what would be the best solution:
Can you post your nginx configuration? Specifically, if you're using keepalive and a non-default value of proxy_http_version within nginx? – cnst 1 hour ago
#cnst I'm using proxy_http_version 1.1 and keepalive 100 – Kohei Nozaki 1 hour ago
As per an earlier answer to an unrelated question here on SO, yet sharing the configuration parameters as above, you might want to reconsider the reasons behind your use of the keepalive functionality between the front-end load-balancer (e.g., nginx) and the backend application server (e.g., tomcat).
As per a keepalive explanation on ServerFault in the context of nginx, the keepalive functionality in the upstream context of nginx wasn't even supported until very-very recently in the nginx development years. Why? It's because there are very few valid scenarios for using keepalive when it's basically faster to establish a new connection than to wait for an existing one to become available:
When the latency between the client and the server is on the order of 50ms+, keepalive makes it possible to reuse the TCP and SSL credentials, resulting in a very significant speedup, because no extra roundtrips are required to get the connection ready for servicing the HTTP requests.
This is why you should never disable keepalive between the client and nginx (controlled through http://nginx.org/r/keepalive_timeout in http, server and location contexts).
But when the latency between the front-end proxy server and the backend application server is on the order of 1ms (0.001s), using keepalive is a recipe for chasing Heisenbugs without reaping any benefits, as the extra 1ms latency to establish a connection might as well be less than the 100ms latency of waiting for an existing connection to become available. (This is a gross oversimplification of connection handling, but it just shows you how extremely insignificant any possible benefits of the keepalive between the front-end load-balancer and the application server would be, provided both of them live in the same region.)
This is why using http://nginx.org/r/keepalive in the upstream context is rarely a good idea, unless you really do need it, and have specifically verified that it produces the results you desire, given the points as above.
(And, just to make it clear, these points are irrespective of what actual software you're using, so, even if you weren't experiencing the problems you experience with your combination of nginx and tomcat, I'd still recommend you not use keepalive between the load-balancer and the application server even if you decide to switch away from either or both of nginx and tomcat.)
My suggestion?
The problem wouldn't be reproducible with the default values of http://nginx.org/r/proxy_http_version and http://nginx.org/r/keepalive.
If your backend is within 5ms of front-end, you most certainly aren't even getting any benefits from modifying these directives in the first place, so, unless chasing Heisenbugs is your path, you might as well keep these specific settings at their most sensible defaults.
We see that you are reusing an established connection to send the POST request and that, as you said, the response comes without the status-line and the headers.
after Tomcat receives a request it just returns only a response body.
Not exactly. It starts with 5d which is probably a chunk-size and this means that the latest "full" response (with status-line and headers) got from this connection contained a "Transfer-Encoding: chunked" header. For any reason, your server still believes the previous response isn't finished by the time it starts sending this new response to your last request.
A missing chunked seems confirmed as the screenshot doesn't show a last-chunk (value = 0) ending the previous request. Note that the last response ends with a last-chunk (the last byte shown is 0).
What causes this ? The previous response isn't technically considered as fully answered. It can be a bug on Tomcat, your webservice library, your own code. Maybe even, you're sending your request too early, before the previous one was completely answered.
Are some bytes missing if you compare the chunk-sizes from what is actually sent to the client ? Are all buffers flushed ? Beware of the line endings (CRLF vs LF only) too.
One last cause that I'm thinking about, if your response contains some kind of user input taken from the request, you can be facing HTTP Splitting.
Possible solutions.
It is worth trying to disable the chunked encoding at your library level, for example with Axis2 check the HTTP Transport.
When reusing a connection, check your client code to make sure that you aren't sending a request before you read all of the previous response (to avoid overlapping).
Further reading
RFC 2616 3.6.1 Chunked Transfer Coding
It turned out that the "sjsxp" library which JAX-WS RI v2.1.3 uses makes Tomcat behave this way. I tried a different version of JAX-WS RI (v2.1.7) which doesn't use the "sjsxp" library anymore and it solved the issue.
A very similar issue posted on Metro mailing list: http://metro.1045641.n5.nabble.com/JAX-WS-RI-2-1-5-returning-malformed-response-tp1063518.html
Say I want to request some resource on a given domain, e.g. example.com/image.jpg.
If I do two requests to this particular resource, can I expect the first response I get back to be mappable to the first response I sent, and so on (or does this depend on client/server implementation)?
I'm asking because if I want to debug request-response pair, I necessarily need to know exactly which response belongs to which request (for timing purposes etc.). So, are there any sure-fire ways to achieve this mapping?
I'm assuming that you are talking about HTTP/1.x using persistent connections (i.e. HTTP keep-alive) when sending a new request without having the response for the previous one yet, i.e. using HTTP pipelining. In this case the order of the responses matches the order of the requests.
If you are instead talking about HTTP/2 then the situation is different because multiple requests can receive the responses in parallel inside the same TCP connection and this also means that a later requests might have received a response before earlier requests. And in which order requests to the same resource are handled by the server depends fully on the server implementation.
The same is true when the requests are done within independent TCP connections. The order might be even more unpredictable than with HTTP/2 because the requests might be handled in different threads or processes and thus the order also depends on the scheduling of these in the operating system.
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.