I have a message driven bean which serves messages in a following way:
1. It takes data from incoming message.
2. Calls external service via HTTP (literally, sends GET requests using HttpURLConnection), using the data from step 1. No matter how long the call takes - the message MUST NOT be dropped.
3. Uses the outcome from step 2 to persist data (using entity beans).
Rate of incoming messages is:
I. Low most of the time: an order of units / tens in a day.
II. Sometimes high: order of hundreds in a few minutes.
QUESTION:
Having that service in step (2) is relatively slow (20 seconds per request and degrades upon increasing workload), what is the best way to deal with situation II?
WHAT I TRIED:
1. Letting MDB to wait until service is executed, no matter how long it takes. This tends to rollback MDB transactions by timeout and to re-deliver message, increasing workload and making things even worse.
2. Setting timeout for HttpURLConnection gives some guarantees in terms of completion time of MDB onMessage() method, but leaves an open question: how to proceed with 'timed out' messages.
Any ideas are very much appreciated.
Thank you!
In that case you can just increase a transaction timeout for your message driven beans.
This is what I ended up with (mostly, this is application server configuration):
Relatively short (comparing to transaction timeout) timeout for HTTP call. The
rationale: long-running transactions from my experience tend to
have adverse side effects such as threads which are "hung" from app.
server point of view, or extra attention to database configuration,
etc.I chose 80 seconds as timeout value.
Increased up to several minutes re-delivery interval for failed
messages.
Careful adjustment of the number of threads which handle messages
simultaneously. I balanced this value with throughput of HTTP service.
Related
We have a solution that takes a message, and sends it to a web API.
Every day, an automatic procedure is run by another department that passes thousands of records into the messagebox, which seems to cause errors related to the API solicit-response port (strangely these errors don't allude to a timeout, but they do only trigger when such a massive quantity of data is sent downstream).
I've contacted the service supplier to determine the capacity of their API calls, so I'll be able to tailor our flow once I have a better idea.
I've been reading up on Rate Based Throttling this morning, and have a few questions I can't find an answer to;
If throttling is enabled, does it only process the Minimum number of samples/messages? If so, what happens to the remaining messages? I read somewhere they're queued in memory, but only of a max of 100, so where do all the others go?
If I have 2350 messages flood through in the space of 2 seconds, and I want to control the flow, would changing my Sampling Window duration down to 1 second and setting Throttling override to initiate throttling make a difference?
If you are talking about Host Throttling setting, the remaining messages will be in the message box database and will show as being in a Dehydrated state.
You would have to test the throttling settings under load. If you get it wrong it can be very bad. I've come across one server where the settings were configured incorrectly and it is constantly throttling.
I don't understand the use of having a timeout with a back off policy. I was told that there is use to it, but I don't understand it.
A timeout, in this case, will allow a service to try and establish a connection for some time, then give up. The BackOff policy (exponential back off) will try to establish a connection, and if it fails, will wait some time, then try again and if it fails, wait the same amount of time or longer.
If BackOff policy will start a connection after the time out, then what use is the time out? If one service uses only Back Off, I cannot foresee a difference between it and another service that uses Back Off and a Timeout. Can someone explain the merit?
Thank you
The backoff policy and default timeout are two completely separate options that do not interact.
In the semantics of gRPC, you establish a single connection to a server, and then make multiple independent requests on that one connection. The default timeout indicates how long a client should let any single request run before reporting that it has failed. The backoff policy, on the other hand, indicates how the client should reestablish that single connection if it is lost.
A failure in a network with many services can trigger many retries. Exponential backoff reduces the network load while services are being restored and helps to prevent the retries themselves becoming part of the problem.
Adding randomness to the backoff timer also helps with retries that might impact one another. This is used, for example, on a shared media network like Ethernet to reduce the chance of a repeated collision when two nodes have detected a collision and are retransmitting.
I think I know what is happening here, but would appreciate a confirmation and/or reading material that can turn that "think" into just "know", actual questions at the end of post in Tl,DR section:
Scenario:
I am in the middle of testing my MVC application for a case where one of the internal components is stalling (timeouts on connections to our database).
On one of my web pages there is a Jquery datatable which queries for an update via ajax every half a second - my current task is to display correct error if that data requests times out. So to test, I made a stored procedure that asks DB server to wait 3 seconds before responding, which is longer than the configured timeout settings - so this guarantees a time out exception for me to trap.
I am testing in Chrome browser, one client. Application is being debugged in VS2013 IIS Express
Problem:
Did not expect the following symptoms to show up when my purposeful slow down is activated:
1) After launching the page with the rigged datatable, application slowed down in handling of all requests from the client browser - there are 3 other components that send ajax update requests parallel to the one I purposefully broke, and this same slow down also applied to any actions I made in the web application that would generate a request (like navigating to other pages). The browser's debugger showed the requests were being sent on time, but the corresponding break points on the server side were getting hit much later (delays of over 10 seconds to even a several minutes)
2) My server kept processing requests even after I close the tab with the application. I closed the browser, I made sure that the chrome.exe process is terminated, but breakpoints on various Controller actions were still getting hit for 20 minutes afterward - mostly on the actions that were "triggered" by automatically looping ajax requests from several pages I was trying to visit during my tests. Also breakpoints were hit on main pages I was trying to navigate to. On second test I used RawCap monitor the loopback interface to make sure that there was nothing actually making requests still running in the background.
Theory I would like confirmed or denied with an alternate explanation:
So the above scenario was making looped requests at a frequency that the server couldn't handle - the client datatable loop was sending them every .5 seconds, and each one would take at least 3 seconds to generate the timeout. And obviously somewhere in IIS express there has to be a limit of how many concurrent requests it is able to handle...
What was a surprise for me was that I sort of assumed that if that limit (which I also assumed to exist) was reached, then requests would be denied - instead it appears they were queued for an absolutely useless amount of time to be processed later - I mean, under what scenario would it be useful to process a queued web request half an hour later?
So my questions so far are these:
Tl,DR questions:
Does IIS Express (that comes with Visual Studio 2013) have a concurrent connection limit?
If yes :
{
Is this limit configurable somewhere, and if yes, where?
How does IIS express handle situations where that limit is reached - is that handling also configurable somewhere? ( i mean like queueing vs. immediate error like server is busy)
}
If no:
{
How does the server handle scenarios when requests are coming faster than they can be processed and can that handling be configured anywhere?
}
Here - http://www.iis.net/learn/install/installing-iis-7/iis-features-and-vista-editions
I found that IIS7 at least allowed unlimited number of silmulatneous connections, but how does that actually work if the server is just not fast enough to process all requests? Can a limit be configured anywhere, as well as handling of that limit being reached?
Would appreciate any links to online reading material on the above.
First, here's a brief web server 101. Production-class web servers are multithreaded, and roughly one thread = one request. You'll typically see some sort of setting for your web server called its "max requests", and this, again, roughly corresponds to how many threads it can spawn. Each thread has overhead in terms of CPU and RAM, so there's a very real upward limit to how many a web server can spawn given the resources the machine it's running on has.
When a web server reaches this limit, it does not start denying requests, but rather queues requests to handled once threads free up. For example, if a web server has a max requests of 1000 (typical) and it suddenly gets bombarded with 1500 requests. The first 1000 will be handled immediately and the further 500 will be queued until some of the initial requests have been responded to, freeing up threads and allowing some of the queued requests to be processed.
A related topic area here is async, which in the context of a web application, allows threads to be returned to the "pool" when they're in a wait-state. For example, if you were talking to an API, there's a period of waiting, usually due to network latency, between sending the request and getting a response from the API. If you handled this asynchronously, then during that period, the thread could be returned to the pool to handle other requests (like those 500 queued up requests from the previous example). When the API finally responded, a thread would be returned to finish processing the request. Async allows the server to handle resources more efficiently by using threads that otherwise would be idle to handle new requests.
Then, there's the concept of client-server. In protocols like HTTP, the client makes a request and the server responds to that request. However, there's no persistent connection between the two. (This is somewhat untrue as of HTTP 1.1. Connections between the client and server are sometimes persisted, but this is only to allow faster future requests/responses, as the time it takes to initiate the connection is not a factor. However, there's no real persistent communication about the status of the client/server still in this scenario). The main point here is that if a client, like a web browser, sends a request to the server, and then the client is closed (such as closing the tab in the browser), that fact is not communicated to the server. All the server knows is that it received a request and must respond, and respond it will, even though there's technically nothing on the other end to receive it, any more. In other words, just because the browser tab has been closed, doesn't mean that the server will just stop processing the request and move on.
Then there's timeouts. Both clients and servers will have some timeout value they'll abide by. The distributed nature of the Internet (enabled by protocols like TCP/IP and HTTP), means that nodes in the network are assumed to be transient. There's no persistent connection (aside from the same note above) and network interruptions could occur between the client making a request and the server responding to the request. If the client/server did not plan for this, they could simply sit there forever waiting. However, these timeouts are can vary widely. A server will usually timeout in responding to a request within 30 seconds (though it could potentially be set indefinitely). Clients like web browsers tend to be a bit more forgiving, having timeouts of 2 minutes or longer in some cases. When the server hits its timeout, the request will be aborted. Depending on why the timeout occurred the client may receive various error responses. When the client times out, however, there's usually no notification to the server. That means that if the server's timeout is higher than the client's, the server will continue trying to respond, even though the client has already moved on. Closing a browser tab could be considered an immediate client timeout, but again, the server is none the wiser and keeps trying to do its job.
So, what all this boils down is this. First, when doing long-polling (which is what you're doing by submitting an AJAX request repeatedly per some interval of time), you need to build in a cancellation scheme. For example, if the last 5 requests have timed out, you should stop polling at least for some period of time. Even better would be to have the response of one AJAX request initiate the next. So, instead of using something like setInterval, you could use setTimeout and have the AJAX callback initiate it. That way, the requests only continue if the chain is unbroken. If one AJAX request fails, the polling stops immediately. However, in that scenario, you may need some fallback to re-initiate the request chain after some period of time. This prevents bombarding your already failing server endlessly with new requests. Also, there should always be some upward limit of the time polling should continue. If the user leaves the tab open for days, not using it, should you really keep polling the server for all that time?
On the server-side, you can use async with cancellation tokens. This does two things: 1) it gives your server a little more breathing room to handle more requests and 2) it provides a way to unwind the request if some portion of it should time out. More information about that can be found at: http://www.asp.net/mvc/overview/performance/using-asynchronous-methods-in-aspnet-mvc-4#CancelToken
In order to overcome the (apparent) 4 minute idle connection timeout on the Azure load balancer, it seems necessary to send some data down the pipe to the client every now and again to keep the connection from being regarded as idle.
Our controller is set up as an AsyncController, and it fires several different asynchronous methods on other objects, all of which are set up to use IO Completion Ports. Thus, we return from our method immediately, and when the completion packet is processed, IIS hooks back up to the original request so that we can render our View.
Is there any way to periodically send a few bytes down the wire in this case? In a "classic" situation, we could have executed the method and then just spun while we waited, sending data every few seconds until the asynchronous method was complete. But, in this situation, the IIS thread is freed to go do other business, and we hook back up to it in our completion callback. What to do? Is this possible?
While your particular case concerns Windows Azure specific (the 4 minute timeout of LBs), the question is pure IIS / ASP.NET workwise. Anyway, I don't think it is possible to send "ping-backs" to the client while in AsyncController/AsyncPage. This is the whole idea of the AsyncPages/Controllers. The IIS leaves the socket aside having the thread serving other requests. And gets back only when you got the OutstandingOperations to zero with AsyncManager.OutstandingOperations.Decrement(); Only then the control is given back to send final response to the client. And once you are the point of sending response, there is no turning back.
I would rather argue for the architectural approach of why you thing someone would wait 4 minutes to get a response (even with a good animated "please wait")? A lot of things may happen during this time. From browser crash, through internet disruption to total power loss/disruption at client. If you are doing real Azure, why not just send tasks for a Worker Role via a Queue (Azure Storage Queues or Service Bus Queues). The other option that stays in front of you for so long running tasks is to use SingalR and fully AJAXed solution. Where you communicate via SignalR the status of the long running operation.
UPDATE 1 due to comments
In addition to the approach suggested by #knightpfhor this can be also achieved with a Queues. Requestor creates a task with some Unique ID and sends it to "Task submission queue". Then "listens" (or polls at regular/irregular intervals) a "Task completion" queue for a message with given Task ID.
In any way I don't see a reason for keeping client connected for the whole duration of the long running task. There are number of ways to decouple such communication.
I am submitting POST requests to an external server running IIS6. This is a time critical request where I want to ensure that my request is processed at a specific time (say 10:00:00 AM). No earlier. And I want to ensure that at that specific time, my request is assigned the highest priority over other requests. Would any of this help:
Sending most of the message a few seconds early and sending the last byte or so a few milliseconds prior to 10:00:00. Not sure if this will help as I will be competing with other requests that come in around that time. Will IIS assign a higher priority to my request based on how long I am connected?
Anything that I can add to the message header to tell the server to queue my request and process only at a specific time?
Any known hacks that I can leverage?
No - HTTP is not a real time protocol. It usually runs on top of TCP/IP which is not a real time protocol. While you can get near real-time behaviour out of such an architecture its far from simple - don't take my word for it - go read the source code for xntpd.
Having said that you give no details of the actual level of precision you require - but your post implies that it could be up to a second - which is a very long time for submitting a request to a webserver. On the other hand, scheduling such an event to fire client side with this level of accuracy is very difficult - I've not tried measuring the accuracy of the scheduler on MSWindowsNT but elsewhere I'd only expect it to be accurate to about 5 minutes. So you'd need to schedule the job to start 5 minutes early then sleep for 10 milliseconds at a time until the target time rolls around.
But then again, thinking about why you need to run any job with any sort of timing accuracy makes me think that you're trying to solve the problem the wrong way.
C.
It sounds like you need more of a scheduler system then trying to use http. HTTP is a stateless protocol, you send a request to IIS, you get a response.
What you might want to consider is taking that request, and then storing the information you require somewhere (database). Then using some sort of scheduler (cronjobs, scheduled tasks) you action that information at the desired time.
What you want, you probably can't achieve with IIS, it's not what it is designed to do.