My webapp is deployed in a cluster of multiple JBoss instances. There is an admin page in the webapp to perform certain Jboss instance-specific operations.
The problem is that requests are sent to a load balancer instead of directly hitting specific individual instance.
Is there any way to direct request to a specific instance? Or at least when the admin page is up, all subsequent requests (Ajax) will stick to the original instance that serves the page at the beginning.
I don't think HttpSession is going to help here. I need to target specific instance and not maintaining the state of individual client.
Thanks.
You were looking for how to configure for Sticky sessions.
Send all requests in a user session consistently to the same backend server known as persistence or stickiness. A significant downside to this technique is its lack of automatic failover: if a backend server goes down, its per-session information becomes inaccessible, and any sessions depending on it are lost. The same problem is usually relevant to central database servers; even if web servers are "stateless" and not "sticky".
Assignment to a particular server might be based on a username, client IP address, or by random assignment. While there are advantages and disadvantages to the approaches.
I would suggest to please go through below article in configuring JBoss under a cluster rather going in deep understanding unless and until you would want to know in deep.
http://docs.jboss.org/jbossas/docs/Clustering_Guide/beta422/html/clustering-http-nodes.html
https://community.jboss.org/wiki/HTTPLoadbalancer
Related
I am trying to build a solution to monitor my website visits without relying on cookies and third parties. Currently, by monitoring the access logs I can get enough and useful information but I am missing the length of the visits (i.e. to check whether people actually read what I write).
What would be a good strategy to monitor visit length with access logs? (I am using Nginx, but presumably the same ideas will be valid for Apache)
If not already part of your build then install the Nchan websockets module for Nginx.
Configure a websocket subscriber location directive on your Nginx server and specify nchan_subscribe_request and nchan_unsubscribe_request directives within it.
Insert a line of code into your page to establish a client connection to your websocket location upon page load.
That's it, done.
Now when I visit your page my browser will connect to your Nginx/Nchan websocket server. Nginx will make an internal request to whatever address you set as the nchan_subscribe_request URL, you can pass my IP in the headers of this request or whatever you need to identify me. Log this in your main log, a separate log, pass it to an upstream server, php, node, make a database entry, save my ip+timestamp in memcached, whatever.
Then when I leave the site my websocket connection will disconnect and Nginx will do the same thing but to the nchan_unsubscribe_request URL instead. Depending upon what you did when I connected you can now do whatever you need to do in order to work out how long I spent on your site.
As you now have a persistent connection to your clients you could take it a step further and include some code to monitor certain client behaviours or watch for certain events.
You are trying to determine whether or not people are reading what you write so you could use a few lines of javascript to monitor how far down the page visitors had scrolled. Each time they scrolled to a new maximum scroll position send that data over the websocket back to your server.
Due to the disconnected nature of HTTP, your access log would probably not give you what you need.
Not totally familiar with nginx or apache log, but I think most logs contain a timestamp, an HTTP request (the document requested and status, etc.) and an IP address.
Potential issues
Without a session cookie, all IP addresses (same household, same company, etc.) would be seen as the same session.
If someone goes to your site (1 HTTP request), consumes content on your site, doesn't proceed to another page, and leaves, your log will only contain that request (which is essentially a bounce, and you won't be able to calculate duration). If your application makes uses of a lot of javascript calls, then you might be able to log from the server side application,
2) If you use a tool like GA, etc., you can still use timer and javascript events (etc. though not perfect) to tell GA that the session is still active. Not sure if it works for typical server logs.
It might not be as big as an issue if a typical visit contains more than 1 request, knowing that there is no easy way to get the duration after the last server request.
I have a website hosted in Azure Websites as a Basic tier website.
I'm currently in the development stage, yet the site is live and accessible by the outside world (at least at a basic level), so I wanted to better understand the monitoring features in the Azure management portal.
When I looked at the monitoring tab inside the portal, I see an odd pattern for HTTP success. Looking at the past 60 minutes (which I personally have not been active on), the HTTP successes are very cyclic, with 80 connections, then 0, then 40, then 0, then repeat.
Does anyone have any pointers how I can figure out what the 80 and 40 connections are. I certainly don't have any timed events in my code, so there shouldn't be any calls being made unless a person is actually hitting the site.
UPDATE:
I setup a staging server and blocked all incoming traffic except my own IP. So the same code running, just without access from the outside world. And the HTTP success appears only when I hit the server myself (as expected). This suggests that my site is being hit by an outside bot maybe? Does anyone know how to protect against this? Or at least diagnose if the requests are not legitimate, etc?
I'd say it's this setting that causes the traffic:
Always On. By default, websites are unloaded if they are idle for some period of time. This lets the system conserve resources. In Basic or Standard mode, you can enable Always On to keep the site loaded all the time. If your site runs continuous web jobs, you should enable Always On, or the web jobs may not run reliably
http://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/documentation/articles/web-sites-configure/
It's just a keep alive to avoid cold starts every time you or someone else visit your site.
Here's another reference that describes this behavior:
What the always-on feature does is simply ping your site every now and
then, to keep the application pool up and running.
And Scott Gu says:
One of the other useful Web Site features that we are introducing
today is a feature we call “Always On”. When Always On is enabled on a
site, Windows Azure will automatically ping your Web Site regularly to
ensure that the Web Site is always active and in a warm/running state.
This is useful to ensure that a site is always responsive (and that
the app domain or worker process has not paged out due to lack of
external HTTP requests).
About the traffic in general: First of all, the requests could really only come from Microsoft, since any traffic pattern like this will quickly be automatically detected and blocked when using Azure Websites - you cannot set up a keep alive like this yourself. Second, no modern bot whatsoever would regularily ping a specific page with that kind of regularity since it's all to obvious. Any modern datacenter security appliance would catch that kind of traffic and block/ignore/nullroute it.
As for your question regarding protection and security: Microsoft cannot protect your code from yourself. However, everything at the perimeter is managed and handled by Microsoft. That's one of the USP features of Azure - Firewall, Load Balancing, Spoofing, Anti-bot and DDOS protection etc. There will of course always be security concerns regarding any publicly exposed service but you can stay focused on your application while Microsoft manages the rest.
When running Azure Websites, you're in the hands of Microsoft regarding security outside of your application scope. That's a great thing, but if you really like to be able to use other security measures you'll have to set up a virtual machine instead and run your site from there.
You may want to first understand what are these requests. Enable web server logging for the website on Azure Management portal and download IIS logs for your website after seeing this pattern. Then check those to understand the URL, client ip addresses for the requests and user agent field to identify if the requests are really from search bots. Based on the observation, you can either disable some IP statically, use dynamic ip restrictions or configure URLREWRITE to block requests with specific patterns in request or request headers
EDIT
This is how you can block search bots - http://moz.com/ugc/blocking-bots-based-on-useragent
You can configure the URLREWRITE locally on an IIS server in the way described in the above article and then copy the configuration generated in the web.config or connect to the azure website directly using IIS manager as described in http://azure.microsoft.com/blog/2014/02/28/remote-administration-of-windows-azure-websites-using-iis-manager/ and configure urlrewrite rule
I'm writing a website that is going to start using a load balancer and I'm trying to wrap my head around it.
Does IIS just do all the balancing for you?
Do you have a separate web layer that sits on the distributed server that does some work before sending to the sub server, like auth or other work?
It seems like a lot of the articles I keep reading don't really give me a straight answer, or I'm just not understanding them correctly, I'd like to get my head around how true load balancing works from a techincal side, and if anyone has any code to share that would also be nice.
I understand caching is gonna be a problem but that's a different topic, session as well.
IIS do not have a load balancer by default but you can use at least two Microsoft technologies:
Application Request Routing that integrates with IIS, there you should ideally have a separate web layer to do routing work,
Network Load Balancing that is integrated with Microsoft Windows Server, there you can join existing servers into NLB cluster.
Both of those technologies do not require any code per se, it a matter of the infrastructure. But you must of course remember about load balanced environment during development. For example, to make a web sites truly balanced, they should be stateless. Otherwise you will have to provide so called stickiness between client and the server, so the same client will be connecting always to the same server.
To make service stateless, do not persist any state (Session, for example, in case of ASP.NET website) on the server but on external server shared between all servers in the farm. So it is common for example to use external ASP.NET Session server (StateServer or SQLServer modes) for all sites in the cluster.
EDIT:
Just to clarify a few things, a few words about both mentioned technologies:
NLB works on network level (as a networking driver in fact), so without any knowledge about applications used. You create so called clusters consisting of a few machines/servers and expose them as a single IP address. Then another machine can use this IP as any other IP, but connections will be routed to the one of the cluster's machines automatically. A cluster is configured on each server, there is no external, additional routing machine. Depending on the clusters settings, as we have already mentioned, a stickiness can be enabled or disabled (called here a Single or None Affinity). There is also a Load weight parameter, so you can set weighed load distribution, sending more connections to the fastest machine for example. But this parameter is static, it can't be dynamically based on network, CPU or any other usage. In fact NLB does not care if target application is even running, it just route network traffic to the selected machine. But it notices servers went offline, so there will be no routing there. The advantages of NLB is that it is quite lightweight and requires no additional machines.
ARR is much more sophisticated, it is built as a module on top of IIS and is designed to make the routing decisions at application level. Network load balancing is only one of its features as it is a more complete, routing solution. It has "rule-based routing, client and host name affinity, load balancing of HTTP server requests, and distributed disk caching" as Microsoft states. You create there Server Farms with many options like load balance algorithm, load distribution and client stickiness. You can define health tests and routing rules to forward request to other servers. Disadvantage of all of it is that there should be a dedicated machine where ARR is installed, so it takes more resources (and costs).
NLB & ARR - as using a single ARR machine can be the single point of failure, Microsoft states that it is worth consideration to create a NLB cluster of ARR machines.
Does IIS just do all the balancing for you?
Yes,if you configure Application Request Routing:
Do you have a separate web layer that sits on the distributed server
Yes.
that does some work before sending to the sub server, like auth or other work?
No, ARR is pretty 'dumb':
IIS ARR doesn't provide any pre-authentication. If pre-auth is a requirement then you can look at Web Application Proxy (WAP) which is available in Windows Server 2012 R2.
It just acts as a transparent proxy that accepts and forwards requests, while adding some caching when configured.
For authentication you can look at Windows Server 2012's Web Application Proxy.
Some tips, and perhaps items to get yourself fully acquainted with:
ARR as all the above answers above state is a "proxy" that handles the traffic from your users to your servers.
You can handle State as Konrad points out, or you can have ARR do "sticky" sessions (ensure that a client always goes to "this server" - presumably the server that maintains state for that specific client). See the discussion/comments on that answer - it's great.
I haven't worn an IT/server hat for so long and frankly haven't touched clustering hands on (always "handled for me automagically" by some provider), so I did ask this question from our host, "what/how is replication among our cluster/farm" done?" - The question covers things like
I'm only working/setting things on 1 server, does that get replicated across X VMs in our cluster/farm? How long?
What about dynamically generated,code and/or user generated files (file system)? If it's on VM1's file system, and I have 10 load balanced VMs, and the client can hit any one of them at any time, then...?
What about encryption? e.g. if you use DPAPI to encrypt web.config stuff (e.g.db conn strings/sections), what is the impact of that (because it's based on machine key, and well, the obvious thing is now you have machine(s) or VM(s). RSA re-write....?
SSL: ARR can handle this for you as well, and that's great! But as with all power, comes a "con" - if you check/validate in your code, e.g. HttpRequest.IsSecureConnection, well, it'll always be false. Your servers/VMs don't have the cert, ARR does. The encrypted conn is between client and ARR. ARR to your servers/VMs isn't. As the link explains, if you prefer it the other way around (no offloading), you can...but that means all your servers/VMs should then have a cert (and how that pertains to "replication" above starts popping in your head).
Not meant to be comprehensive, just listing things out from memory...Hth
I want to be able to deploy a new version of my asp.net/mvc website without loosing client session state or causing any downtime. The way I'm thinking of accomplishing this is by creating a Windows Network Load Balancing server so that clients can reach it via a single url such as https://mysite.org/. It would then redirect traffic to one of two other sites (A.mysite.org or B.mysite.org). I'll set the NLB's affinity to Single, and disable site B so that all sessions are are directed to site A. When I need to deploy a new version of the website, I'll deploy to site B, enable site B, and disable site A. So, everybody that was on site A can stay there (using version 1) until they log off. All new sessions will connect to site B and run version 2. The next time I deploy, I'll do the reverse.
I've never used NLB. Is this appropriate? Is there a simpler, easier way?
How does NLB know when a request from client X already has a session on A or B? Ie. when they log off the website, and try to login again, will the nlb send them to the same site they were on before?
There are quite a few considerations here
Firstly, rather than juggling the affinity on your NLB, you will probably be better storing your ASP.NET Sessions in StateServer or SQL based Session management to allow web clients (or web service clients) to access your site without 'sticky' affinity. Once you've set up the StateServer or created the SQL Session DB, it should be a simple change to your app's web config.
NLB itself works great for keeping your site up while you upgrade your site. You will typically drainstop a server in the cluster before reinstalling your app to it, test it, and then bring it back into the NLB cluster, before repeating the process with the next server etc.
AFAIK, NLB Single Affinity works at TCP/IP level and is does not interrogate ASP.NET sessions. Basically any connection from the same client IP to the same server IP:Port combination will be directed to the same server. Also AFAIK, both servers will be sharing the NLB IP (In addition to any existing IP's they have).
Since it seems your site uses SSL, it seems that unless you have affinity, that the SSL session keys will need to be renegotiated on each request, which could have performance implications.
Assume you have one box (dedicated server) that's on 24 7 and several other boxes that are user machines that have unused bandwidth. Assume you want to host several web pages. How can the dedicated server redirect http traffic to the user machines. It is desirable that the address field in the web browser still displays the right address, and not an ip. Ie. I don't want to redirect to another web page, I want to tell the web browser that it should request the same web page from a different server. I have been browsing through the 3xx codes, and I don't think they are made for anything like this.
It should work some what along these lines:
1. Dedicated server is online all the time.
2. User machine starts and tells the dedicated server that it's online.
(several other user machines can do similarly)
3. Web browser looks up domain name and finds out that it points to dedicated server.
4. Web browser requests page.
5. Dedicated server tells web browser to repeat request to user machine
Is it possible to use some kind of redirect, and preferably tell the browser to keep sending further requests to user machine. The user machine can close down at almost any point of time, but it is assumed that the user machine will wait for ongoing transactions to finish, no closing the server program in the middle of a get or something.
What you want is called a Proxy server or load balancer that would sit in front of your web server.
The web browser would always talk to the load balancer, and the load balancer would forward the request to one of several back-end servers. No redirect is needed on the client side, as the client always thinks it is just talking to the load balancer.
ETA:
Looking at your various comments and re-reading the question, I think I misunderstood what you wanted to do. I was thinking that all the machines serving content would be on the same network, but now I see that you are looking for something more like a p2p web server setup.
If that's the case, using DNS and HTTP 30x redirects would probably be what you need. It would probably look something like this:
Your "master" server would serve as an entry point for the app, and would have a well known host name, e.g. "www.myapp.com".
Whenever a new "user" machine came online, it would register itself with the master server and a the master server would create or update a DNS entry for that user machine, e.g. "user123.myapp.com".
If a request came to the master server for a given page, e.g. "www.myapp.com/index.htm", it would do a 302 redirect to one of the user machines based on whatever DNS entry it had created for that machine - e.g. redirect them to "user123.myapp.com/index.htm".
Some problems I see with this approach:
First, Once a user gets redirected to a user machine, if the user machine went offline it would seem like the app was dead. You could avoid this by having all the links on every page specifically point to "www.myapp.com" instead of using relative links, but then every single request has to be routed through the "master server" which would be relatively inefficient.
You could potentially solve this by changing the DNS entry for a user machine when it goes offline to point back to the master server, but that wouldn't work without an extremely short TTL.
Another issue you'll have is tracking sessions. You probably wouldn't be able to use sessions very effectively with this setup without a shared session state server of some sort accessible by all the user machines. Although cookies should still work.
In networking, load balancing is a technique to distribute workload evenly across two or more computers, network links, CPUs, hard drives, or other resources, in order to get optimal resource utilization, maximize throughput, minimize response time, and avoid overload. Using multiple components with load balancing, instead of a single component, may increase reliability through redundancy. The load balancing service is usually provided by a dedicated program or hardware device (such as a multilayer switch or a DNS server).
and more interesting stuff in here
apart from load balancing you will need to set up more or less similar environment on the "users machines"
This sounds like 1 part proxy, 1 part load balancer, and about 100 parts disaster.
If I had to guess, I'd say you're trying to build some type of relatively anonymous torrent... But I may be wrong. If I'm right, HTTP is entirely the wrong protocol for something like this.
You could use dns, off the top of my head, you could setup a hostname for each machine that is going to serve users:
www in A xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx # ip address of machine 1
www in A xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx # ip address of machine 2
www in A xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx # ip address of machine 3
Then as others come online, you could add then to the dns entries:
www in A xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx # ip address of machine 4
Only problem is you'll have to lower the time to live (TTL) entry for each record down to make it smaller (I think the default is 86400 - 1 day)
If a machine does down, you'll have to remove the dns entry, though I do think this is the least intensive way of adding capacity to any website. Jeff Attwood has more info here: is round robin dns good enough?