The scenario is a network when multimedia file transfer is very common.
I have some web applications in that network and I want to create a rule maybe in the Mikrotik router in order to avoid the webapplication slow down when a file transferring is occurring.
Is that possible to avoid and how?
May be creating a limit udp bandwidth rule.
Your description of problem is too overall but maybe this will indicate you solution.
If you want to slow down some connections you should use queue,
when you are using queues you can try to configure BURST, this feature allows to limit long time connections. Usefull in advance configurations of the queues are mark-packet and mark-connections
Sometimes is better to use something like ratelimit in webserver but it all depends on the situation.
Related
I have a client with a 1-2 thousand viewer audience, with everyday streams, same concurrent number of viewers.
Ive got a server set up for their website etc, but am in the process of figuring out the best way to stream with OBS onto that server, and than re-distribute that stream to clients (as an embed on the website).
Now from the calculations i did, running that kind of concurrent viewers is very problematic, as it forces you into a 10gbit link - which is very expensive, and i would ideally like to fit within 1-2gbps, if possible.
A friend of mine recommended to look into "Multicast" which supossedly uses MUCH less bandwith than regular live streaming options. Is multicast doable? Ive had a NGINX live stream set up on my server by a friend before, but never looked into the config and if multicast is supported within that. Are there any other options? What would you recommend?
Also, the service of that live stream isnt a high profit / organisation type of deal, so any pre-made services just dont make sense, as it would easily cost 40+ dollars per stream, which is just too much for my client.
Thank you for any help!
Tom
Rather than Multicast, P2P is more practical solution on Internet, to save money not bandwidth.
Especially for H5 browser, it's possible to use WebRTC DataChannel to transport P2P data.
But Multicast does not work on internet routers.
Multicast works by sending a single stream across the network to edge points where clients can 'join' the multicast to get an individual stream for them.
It requires that the network supports multicast protocols and the edges align with your users.
It is typically used when an operator has their own IP network for service like IPTV, rather than for services over the internet.
For your scenario, you would usually use an organ server and a CDN - this will usually reduce the load on your own server as the video will be cached on the network and multiple user can access the same 'chunks' of the video.
You can see and AWS example for on demand video here - other vendor and cloud providers have solutions too so this is just an example:
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/userguide/tutorial-s3-cloudfront-route53-video-streaming.html
You can find more complex On Demand and Live tutorial also but they are likley more that you need: https://aws.amazon.com/cloudfront/streaming/
Exploring P2P may be an option also as Winton suggests - some CDN may also leverage P2P technology internally.
I have a web app and I would like to prevent DOS attacks by blocking an IP address if it make many request in a short period of time.
For example, if the same IP address makes 100 request in a second, I can assume that it's some kind of attack and I would like to block this IP.
However, making this check in the application layer seems too expensive - what is the optimal way to make this check?
Should I make this kind of check at my:
firewall
router
apache config
someplace else entirely ...
If you want to block IP addresses when they make a certain number of requests, this is best done at the Network layer. This would suggest that you do this either in your host machine's network stack or using a router (which operates at the network layer).
Some things you might want to consider though are:
- Are you really wanting to block access to the entire host based on an IP address, or do you want to block access to a specific application running on a specific port.
- Sometimes, by using NATs, one IP address may be making requests on behalf of many real hosts.
With any security application you need to have many layers of defence, so it would be a good idea to invest in a good firewall as well.
Some apps for generating APIs in django implement some methods for limiting the amount of request per second.
For example django-piston use throttling method to do that.
django-piston throttling
Thats an easy way to solve the problem.
I am to design a server that needs to serve millions of clients that are simultaneously connected with the server via TCP.
The data traffic between the server and the clients will be sparse, so bandwidth issues can be ignored.
One important requirement is that whenever the server needs to send data to any client it should use the existing TCP connection instead of opening a new connection toward the client (because the client may be behind a firewall).
Does anybody know how to do this, and what hardware/software is needed (at the least cost)?
What operating systems are you considering for this?
If using a Windows OS and using something later than Vista then you shouldn't have a problem with many thousands of connections on a single machine. I've run tests (here: http://www.lenholgate.com/blog/2005/11/windows-tcpip-server-performance.html) with a low spec Windows Server 2003 machine and easily achieved more than 70,000 active TCP connections. Some of the resource limits that affect the number of connections possible have been lifted considerably on Vista (see here: http://www.lenholgate.com/blog/2005/11/windows-tcpip-server-performance.html) and so you could probably achieve your goal with a small cluster of machines. I don't know what you'd need in front of those to route the connections.
Windows provides a facility called I/O Completion Ports (see: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc302334.aspx) which allow you to service many thousands of concurrent connections with very few threads (I was running tests yesterday with 5000 connections saturating a link to a server with 2 threads to process the I/O...). Thus the basic architecture is very scalable.
If you want to run some tests then I have some freely available tools on my blog that allow you to thrash a simple echo server using many thousands of connections (1) and (2) and some free code which you could use to get you started (3)
The second part of your question, from your comments, is more tricky. If the client's IP address keeps changing and there's nothing between you and them that is providing NAT to give you a consistent IP address then their connections will, no doubt, be terminated and need to be re-established. If the clients detect this connection tear down when their IP address changes then they can reconnect to the server, if they can't then I would suggest that the clients need to poll the server every so often so that they can detect the connection loss and reconnect. There's nothing the server can do here as it can't predict the new IP address and it will discover that the old connection has failed when it tries to send data.
And remember, your problems are only just beginning once you get your system to scale to this level...
This problem is related to the so-called C10K problem. The C10K page lists a large number of good resources for addressing the problems you will encounter when you try to allow thousands of clients to connect to the same server.
I've come across the APE Project
a while back. It seems like a dream come true. They can support up to 100k concurrent clients on a single node. Spread them across 10 or 20 nodes, and you can serve millions. Perfect for RESTful applications. Might want to look deeper for any shared namespace. One drawback is that this is a standalone server, as in supplementary to a web server. This server is of course Open Source, so any cost is hardware/ISP related.
You cannot use UDP. If the client sends a request and you don't reply immediately, a router is going to forget the reverse route in 30 seconds or less, so your server will never be able to reply to the client.
TCP is the only option, and it, too, will give you headaches. Most routers are going to forget the route and/or drop the connection after a few minutes, so your client/server code is going to have to send "keep alives" fairly often.
I recommend setting up a "sniffer", to see how the phone companies are staying in touch with your smartphone for their "push" technology. Copy whatever they're doing, because that stuff works!
As Greg mentioned, the problem you are describing is C10K (or rather "C1M" in your case )
I recently made a simple TCP echo server on linux that scales very well with the number of sessions (only tested up to 200.000 though), by using the epoll queue. On BSD, you have something similar called kqueue.
You can check out the code if you want to. Hope this helps and good luck!
EDIT: As noted in the comments below, my original assertion that there is a 64K limit based on the number of ports is incorrect, however there is a 32K limit on the number of socket handles, so my suggested design is valid.
With a typical TCP/IP server design, you're limited in the number of simultaneous open connections you can have. The server has one listening port, and when a client connects to it the server makes an accept call, and that creates a new socket on a random port for the rest of the connection.
To handle more than 64K simultaneous connections I think you need to use UDP instead. You only need one port for the server to listen on, and you need to manage the connections using a 32-bit client ID in the packet data instead of having a separate port for each client. The 32-bit client ID could be the client's IP address, and the client can listen on a known UDP port for messages coming back from the server. That port would be the only one that needs to be open on the firewall.
With this approach, your only limitation is how quickly you can handle and respond to UDP messages. With millions of clients, even sparse traffic could give you large spikes, and if you don't read the packets fast enough your input queue will fill up and you'll start dropping packets. The C10K page Greg points to will give you strategies for that.
I'm making a network game (1v1) where in-game its p2p - no need for a game server.
However, for players to be able to "find each other", without the need to coordinate in another medium and enter IP addresses (similar to the modem days of network games), I need to have a coordination/matching server.
I can't use regular web hosting because:
The clients will communicate in UDP.
Therefore I'll need to do UDP Hole Punching to be able to go through the NAT
That would require the server to talk in UDP and know the client's IP and port
afaik with regular web hosting (php/etc) I can only get the client's IP address and can only communicate in TCP (HTTP).
Options I am currently considering:
Use a hosting solution where my program can accept UDP connection. (any recommendations?)
UDPonNAT seems to do this but uses GTalk and requires each client to have a GTalk account for this (which probably makes it an unsuitable solution)
Any ideas? Thanks :)
First, let me say that this is well out of my realm of expertise, but I found myself very interested, so I've been doing some searching and reading.
It seems that the most commonly prescribed solution for UDP NAT traversal is to use a STUN server. I did some quick searches to see if there are any companies that will just straight-up provide you with a STUN hosting solution, but if there even were any, they were buried in piles of ads for simple web hosting.
Fortunately, it seems there are several STUN servers that are already up and running and free for public use. There is a list of public STUN servers at voip-info.org.
In addition, there is plenty more information to be had if you explore SO questions tagged "nat".
I don't see any other choice than to have a dedicated server running your code. The other solutions you propose are, shall we say, less than optimal.
If you start small, virtual hosting will be fine. Costs are pretty minimal.
Rather than a full-blown dedicated server, you could just get a cheap shared hosting service and have the application interface with a PHP page, which in turn interfaces with a MySQL database backend.
For example, Lunarpages has a $3/month starter package that includes 5gb of space and 50gb of bandwidth. For something this simple, that's all you should need.
Then you just have your application poll the web page for the list of games, and submit a POST request in order to add their own game to the list.
Of course, this method requires learning PHP and MySQL if you don't already know them. And if you do it right, you can have the PHP page enter a sort of infinite loop to keep the connection open and just feed updates to the client, rather than polling the page every few seconds and wasting a lot of bandwidth. That's way outside the scope of this answer though.
Oh, and if you're looking for something absolutely free, search for a free PHP host. Those exist too! Even with an ad-supported host, your app could just grab the page and ignore the ads when you parse the list of games. I know that T35 used to be one of my favorites because their free plan doesn't track space or bandwidth (it limits the per-file size, to eliminate their service being used as a media share, but it shouldn't be a problem for PHP files). But of course, I think in the long run you'll be better off going with a paid host.
Edit: T35 also says "Free hosting allows 1 domain to be hosted, while paid offers unlimited domain hosting." So you can even just pay for a domain name and link it to them! I think in the short term, that's your best (cheapest) bet. Of course, this is all assuming you either know or are willing to learn PHP in order to make this happen. :)
There's nothing that every net connection will support. STUN is probably good, UPnP can work for this.
However, it's rumored that most firewalls can be enticed to pass almost anything through UDP port 53 (DNS). You might have to argue with the OS about your access to that port though.
Also, check out SIP, it's another protocol designed for this sort of thing. With the popularity of VOIP, there may be decent built-in support for this in more firewalls.
If you're really committed to UDP, you might also consider tunneling it over HTTP.
how about you break the problem into two parts - make a game matcher client (that is distinct from the game), which can communicate via http to your cheap/shared webhost. All gamers who wants to use the game matching function use this. THe game matcher client then launches the actual game with the correct parameters (IP, etc etc) after obtaining the info from your server.
The game will then use the standard way to UDP punch thru NAT, etc etc, as per your network code. The game dont actually need to know anything about the matcher client or matcher server - in the true sense of p2p (like torrents, once you can obtain your peer's IPs, you can even disconnect from the tracker).
That way, your problems become smaller.
An intermediate solution between hosting your own dedicated server and a strictly P2P networking environment is the gnutella model. In that model, there are superpeers that act like local servers, having known IP addresses and being connected to (and thus having knowledge of) more clients than a typical peer. This still requires you to run at least one superpeer yourself, but it gives you the option to let other people run their own superpeers.
We develop a web app that manages files and resources for different users to download throughout the day on a web server with very limited upstream bandwidth.
Is there any way to monitor in real time how much upstream bandwidth is being taken up by individual connections to IIS (7.0)?
Ideally we'd like way to see a list of each active IIS connection, the KB/s being delivered to each in real time, and the destination IP address.
As a super bonus: Is there any way to individually throttle connections/IP's so that they don't hog all the bandwidth?
Some prosumer-level software firewalls let you do this. If you configure IIS so that each worker process is easily distinguishable from the others, you can accomplish what you want using software like Net Limiter.
Have you looked into the Bit Rate Throttling module? It can be used to throttle media and non-media files at specified bit rates.