I am developing a group chat using the python Twisted framework. The technique I am using is Long polling with Ajax. I am returning SERVER_NOT_DONE_YET to keep the connection open. The code is non-blocking and allows other requests. How much scalable is it ??
However, I want to move ahead of this streaming over open connections. I want to implement a pure server push. How to do it ? Do I need to go in the direction of XMPP ? If I open a socket on the server for each unique client, which web server would best suit the bridging ? How much scalable would it be ?
I want it to be as much scalable as the C10K problem.I would like to stick to Twisted because it has a lot of protocol implementations in easy steps. Please point me in the right direction. Thanx
Long-polling works, but isn't necessarily your best option. It starts getting really nasty in terms of integration with firewalls and flaky internet connections. For example, at work, a lot of our customers' firewalls kill off any HTTP connection that isn't active for 10-20 seconds.
We've solved a lot of problems by switching over to WebSocket over SSL. WebSocket gives you a full-duplex channel, which is perfect for server push. By using SSL, firewalls are often less aggressive in their garbage collecting, and transparent proxies are often fooled by the TLS encryption. You will still need to manage the occasional disconnection on an application-level, even if you're using WebSockets instead of long-polling, but even that can be handled gracefully by having a decent recovery protocol, regardless of whatever transport protocol you use.
This being said, instead of going directly for WebSockets, we've decided to use SockJS. The main reason for this choice was that SockJS can use WebSockets when available (rfc6455, hixie-76, hybi-10), but also fall back to xhr-streaming, xdr-streaming, etc, if the client's browser does not support it (or if the connection fails). When I say that it can "fall back", I mean that the code you use on the client side remains exactly the same, SockJS takes care of the dirty work.
On the server side, the same is true. We currently use Cyclone's SockJS implementation for Twisted (in production), but we're also aware of DesertBus' implementation, which we still have to check out. There's also some other stuff that we're hoping to check out, for example WAMP, and the accompanying Autobahn|Python.
With regards to performance, we use HAProxy for SSL termination and load-balancing. HAProxy's performance is pretty amazing, on a multitude of levels.
We have migrated to WebSockets now. It works perfectly fine !!
Related
I am searching for a good method to transfer data over internet, and I work in C++/windows environment. The data is binary, a compressed blob of an extracted image. Input and requirements are as follows:
6kB/packet # 10 packets/sec (60kBytes per second)
Reliable data transfer
I am new to network programming and so far I could figure out that one of the following methods will be suitable.
Sockets
MSMQ (MS Message Queuing)
The Client runs on a browser (Shows realtime images on browser). While server runs native C++ code. Please let me know if there are any other methods for achieving the same? Which one should I go for and why?
If the server determines the pace at which images are sent, which is what it looks like, a server push style solution would make sense. What most browsers (and even non-browsers) are settling for these days are WebSockets.
The main advantage WebSockets have over most proprietary protocols, apart from becoming a widely adopted standard, is that they run on top of HTTP and can thus permeate (most) proxies and firewalls etc.
On the server side, you could potentially integrate node.js, which allows you to easily implement WebSockets, and comes with a lot of other libraries. It's written in C++, and extensible via C++ and JavaScript, which node.js hosts a VM for. node.js's main feature is being asynchronous at every level, making that style of programming the default.
But of course there are other ways to implement WebSockets on the server side, maybe node.js is more than you need. I have implemented a C++ extension for node.js on Windows and use socket.io to do WebSockets and non-WebSocket transports for older browsers, and that has worked out fine for me.
But that was textual data. In your binary data case, socket.io wouldn't do it, so you could check out other libraries that do binary over WebSockets.
Is there any specific reason why you cannot run a server on your windows machine? 60kb/seconds, looks like some kind of an embedded device?
Based on our description, you ned to show image information, in realtime on a browser. You can possibly use HTTP. but its stateless, meaning once the information is transferred, you lose the connection. You client needs to poll the C++/Windows machine. If you are prety confident the information generated is periodic, you can use this approach. This requires a server, so only if a yes to my first question
A chat protocol. Something like a Jabber client running on your client, and a Jabber server on your C++/Windows machine. Chat protocols allow almost realtime
While it may seem to make sense, I wouldn't use MSMQ in this scenario. You may not run into a problem now, but MSMQ messages are limited in size and you may eventually hit a wall because of this.
I would use TCP for this application, TCP is built with reliability in mind and you can simply feed data through a socket. You may have to figure out a very simple protocol yourself but it should be the best choice.
Unless you are using an embedded device that understands MSMQ out of the box, your best bet to use MSMQ would be to use a proxy and you are then still forced to play with TCP and possibly HTTP.
I do home automation that includes security cameras on my personal time and I use the .net micro framework and even if it did have MSMQ capabilities I still wouldn't use it.
I recommend that you look into MJPEG (Motion JPEG) which sounds exactly like what you would like to do.
http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/371955/Motion-JPEG-Streaming-Server
Is it a good idea to use Websockets (comet, server push, ...) to overcome a problem with long running HTTP requests? Imagine you have an app, build on full-stack web app framework, like Django, or Rails. You want to do some background processing in the name of performance. That's easy to do from programmer perspective, but the problem arises in the UI.
Users demand immediate response. So my idea was to use Socket.IO + node.js + AMQP messaging, to push notifications back to browsers, once the background task completed. I like the idea, but it still feels like lots of engineering, just because we don't want to long running requests in our main app. Competing idea could be to use another, more robust, web server, that can handle many long running HTTP requests.
Which one you think is better?
Is it a good idea to use Websockets to
overcome a problem with long running HTTP requests?
Yes it is. You can save singificant amount of data when compared to other techniques, such as continuous or long polling. Try to look at this article, namely the Step 3 part.
I like the idea, but it still feels like lots of engineering, just
because we don't want to long running requests in our main app.
Competing idea could be to use another, more robust, web server, that
can handle many long running HTTP requests.
Socket.io abstracts transport layer and fallback solutions (in case of websockets absence) for you. If you want to use socket.io/node.js/AMPQ stack only for messaging and notifications then it shouldn't be a complex or time consuming development process, however it may depend on various stuff around.
By delegating messaging/notifications to node.js you may disburden your main app to great extent thanks to its non-blocking architecture although you will introduce dependency on another technology.
On the other hand choosing more performant web server may solve your performance concerns for some time, but you may eventually end up with scaling your system (either up or out).
WebSockets in themselves provide little here over e.g. XHR or jsonp long polling. From the user's perspective, messaging over either transport would feel the same. From the server's perspective, an open WebSocket connection or an open long poll isn't violently different.
What you're really doing, and should be doing regardless of the underlying technology, is build your application to be asynchronous - event driven.
What is the correct way (or best) way to implement Comet, HTTP Push, or Reverse AJAX?
What .NET implementations would you recommend?
I have hear about, WebSync and PokeIn, both are paid implementations, I have used PokeIn and its pretty straight forward. If you are looking forward to code your own COMET implementation, I just can say that its a complex task, because you need to modify the natural behaviour if IIS. Its a hacky way to get around the limitations of the HTTP protocol and you need to know really well what you doing so don't end up breaking things around =).
It's also known as long-lived
requests. This is also by far the most
complex method to implement.
Basically, a request is made by the
client, and the server very slowly
responds, which causes the connection
to be maintained. Periodically, when
the server has something to push,
it'll "burst" send the information, so
to speak. This approach gives you
real-time push, which is great. But,
it has a serious down-side: holding
connections open like that isn't how
the underlying protocols are meant to
work, and most servers aren't terribly
happy about it. If your traffic gets
too great, you'll chew up threads on
the server and wind up bringing your
site down.
ref: http://www.coderanch.com/t/121668/HTML-JavaScript/does-Reverse-Ajax-Works
JOBG is correct re: the complexities; it's probably not a task you want to undertake lightly. I'm one of the authors of WebSync, and I can attest that it's a difficult task.
There are a ton of examples in the download, and the community edition is free.
Microsoft is developing HTTP push in SignalR
https://github.com/SignalR/SignalR
I am writing an application where the client side will be uploading data to the server through a wireless link.
The connection should be very reliable.The link is expected to break many times and there will be many clients connected to the server.
I am confused whether to use TCP or reliable UDP.
Please share your thoughts.
Thanks.
RUDP is not, of course, a formal standard, and there's no telling if you will find existing implementations you can use. Given a choice between rolling this from scratch and just re-making TCP connections, I'd chose TCP.
To be safe, I would go with TCP just because it's a reliable, standard protocol. RUDP has the disadvantage of not being an established standard (although it's been mentioned in several IETF discussions).
Good luck with your project!
It's likely that both your TCP and RUDP links would be broken by your environment, so the fact that you're using RUDP is unlikely to help there; there will likely be times when no datagrams can get through...
What you actually need to make sure of is that a) you can handle the number of connected clients, b) your application protocol can detect reasonably quickly when you've lost connectivity with a client (or server) and c) you can handle the required reconnection and maintenance of cross connection session state for clients.
As long as you deal with b) and c) it doesn't really matter if the connection keeps being broken. Make sure you design your application protocol so that you can get things done in short batches; so if you're uploading files, make sure that you're sending small blocks and that the application protocol can resume a transfer that was broken half way through; you don't want to get 99% of the way through a 2gb transfer and lose the connection and have to start again.
For this to work your server needs some kind of client session state cache where you can keep the logical state of a client's connection beyond the life of the connection itself. Design from the start to expect a given session to include multiple separate connections. The session state should possibly have some kind of timeout so if the client goes away for along time it doesn't continue to consume resources on the server but, to be honest, it may simply be a case of saving the state off to disk after a while.
In summary, I don't think the choice of transport matters and I'd go with TCP at least to start with. What will really matter is being able to manage your client's session state on the server and deal with the fact that clients will connect and disconnect regularly.
If you aren't sure, odds are that you should use TCP. For one thing, it's certain to be part of the network stack for anything supporting IP. "Reliable UDP" is rarely supported out of the box, so you'll have some extra support work for your clients.
I've just started dabbling in some game development and wanted to create a simple multiplayer game. Is it feasible to use HTTP as the primary communication protocol for a multiplayer Game.
My game will not be making several requests a second but rather a a request every few seconds. The client will be a mobile device.
The reason I'm asking is, I thought it may be interesting to try using Tornado which reportedly scales well and supports non blocking requests and can handle "thousands of concurrent users".
So my client could make a HTTP Request, and when the game server has somethign to tell it, it will respond to the request. I believe this illustrates what some people call the COMET design pattern.
I understand that working at the socket level has less overhead but I am just wondering if this would be feasible at all given my game requirements? Or am I just thinking crazy?
Thanks in advance.
Q: Is it feasible to use HTTP as the primary communication protocol for a multiplayer Game.
A. Using HTTP as a communication protocol may make sense for your game, probably not, but that's for you to decide. I have developed applications for Windows Mobile, Blackberry, Android and iPhone for just over 10 years. All the way back to CE 1.0. With that in mind, here is my opinion.
First I suggest reading RFC 3205 as Teddy suggested. It explains the reasons for my suggestions in detail.
In general HTTP is good because...
If you're developing a browser based game - flash or javascript where you don't create the client, then use HTTP because it's built in anyway and it's likely all you can use.
You can get http server hosting with decent scripting super cheap anywhere
There's a ton of tools available and lots of documentation
It's easy to get started
HTTP may be bad because...
HTTP introduces huge overhead in terms of bandwidth compared to a simple TCP service.
For example Omegle.com sends 420 bytes of header data to send a 9 byte payload.
If you really need comet / long polling you'll waste a lot of time figuring out how to make your server talk right instead of working on what it says.
A steady stream of http traffic may overload mobile devices in both processing and bandwidth, giving you less resources to devote to your game performance.
You may not think you know how to create your own TCP server - but it really is easy.
If you're writing the server AND the client, then I would go straight to TCP. If you already know python then use the twisted networking library. You can get a simple server up in an hour or so just following the tutorials.
Check out the LineReceiver example for a super simple server you can test with any telnet client.
http://twistedmatrix.com/projects/core/documentation/howto/servers.html
WRT:
"my client could make a HTTP Request, and when the game server has somethign to tell it, it will respond to the request."
This is not how HTTP is supposed to work. So, no, HTTP would not be a good choice here. HTTP requests timeout if the response is not received back with the timeout (60 seconds is a common default but it would depend on the specifics).
Please read RFC 3205: On the use of HTTP as a Substrate, which deals with this.
With the target platform being a mobile device (and the limited bandwidth that entails) HTTP wouldn't be the first tool I would pull out of the box.
If you just fancy playing with all this technology, then you could give it a go. Tornado seems like a reasonable choice, if the example on the web site is anything to go by. But any simple server-side web language would suffice for serving up the responses you need at the rate you have mentioned. The performance characteristics are likely to be irrelevant here.
The COMET method is when you leave a HTTP connection open over a long period. It is primarily there for 'server push' of data. But usually you don't need this. It's usually much more straightforward to make repeated requests and handle the responses individually.