I have a web application deployed over IIS 7.0. the application is accessible by large number of users and manipulates large data ..my question is concerning the HTTP Keep-Alive option which is set to true by default.
is it a better approach to set the HTTP Keep-Alive to false or true.
in case of true is the good approach to use time out?
KeepAlive should normally be used to handle the requests that immediately follow an HTML request. Let's say on the first visit to your site I get an HTML page with 5 css, 5js and 25 images, I will use my HTTP connection which is still alive to request these things (well, depends on the browser, I'll maybe use 3 connection to speed up these things).
To handle this fact we usually use a Keepalive of 2s or 3s. Having a longer keepalive means the connection is waiting for the next page that the user may request. This may be a valid way of thinking, next time the user will want a page, we'll avoid to loose time establishing HTTP connection (and this can be the longest part of the request/response time). But for your server that mean most of HTTP connection that are handled by the server are doing... nothing. And you will reach your MaxConnection (W3SVC/MaxConnections with a ridiculous default to 10), with connections doing nothing. Really Bad. So long keep-alive needs big webservers and should be used only if your application really needs it.
If you use Keepalive in a 'classical website' you must change the connection timeout (by default 2min). In Apache you would have 2 settings, a keepalive tiemout (5s by default) and a connection timeout (2min). In IIS seems the timeout settings is used for both. So do not set it to 2s (a client really slow in sending his request will timeout), but something like 10s is maybe enough. Now one response is to disallow Keep-Alive, and make the browser opening more connections. Another response is to use a modern webserver (like nginx or cherokee for example) which handles keep-alive connection in a more elegant and resource-free way than Apache or IIS.
Even if you do not use Keepalive, what's the reason of waiting 2 minutes for a client timeout? it's is certainly too high, decrease this value to something like 60s.
Then you should check several settings related to timeout (ConnectionTimeout, HeaderWaitTimeout, MinFileBytesPerSec) and this nice response on performances settings in the registry.
This article will bring more insight and don't forget to check the "How do we fix it?" section
http://mocko.org.uk/b/2011/01/23/http-keepalive-considered-harmful/
I think that it's not a good idea to get all users connected.
Because of:
User just can open your site, but not use it - why we shoud keep connection for long time?
It's hard to keep much connection (more memory)
Use connection time-out (max 5 min will we ok)
BUT: if your application is a live chat - you should kepp alive all connection. In this way better to use Ajax Long Polling Request + Node JS + some fast nosql db to store chat messages.
Related
I have an ASP.NET Web API application running behind a load balancer. Some clients keep an HTTP busy connection alive for too much time, creating unnecessary affinity and causing high load on some server instances. In order to fix that, I wish to gracefully close a connection that is doing too much requests in a short period of time (thus forcing the client to reconnect and pick a different server instance) while at same time keeping low traffic connections alive indefinitely. Hence I cannot use a static configuration.
Is there some API that I can call to flag a request to "answer this then close the connection" ? Or can I simply add the Connection: close HTTP header that ASP.NET will see and close the connection for me?
It looks like the good solution for your situation will be the built-in IIS functionality called Dynamic IP restriction. "To provide this protection, the module temporarily blocks IP addresses of HTTP clients that make an unusually high number of concurrent requests or that make a large number of requests over small period of time."
It is supported by Azure Web Apps:
https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/confirming-dynamic-ip-address-restrictions-in-windows-azure-web-sites/
If that is the helpful answer, please mark it as a helpful or mark it as the answer. Thanks!
I am not 100% sure this would work in your situation, but in the past I have had to block people coming from specific IP addresses geographically and people coming from common proxies. I created an Authorized Attribute class following:
http://www.asp.net/web-api/overview/security/authentication-filters
In would dump the person out based on their IP address by returning a HttpStatusCode.BadRequest. On every request you would have to check a list of bad ips in the database and go from there. Maybe you can handle the rest client side, because they are going to get a ton of errors.
Write an action filter that returns a 302 Found response for the 'blocked' IP address. I would hope, the client would close the current connection and try again on the new location (which could just be the same URL as the original request).
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
I am running an application server using the Play! Framework, which uses Netty for the actual IO heavy lifting.
The HTTP connections have keep-alive turned on (which is the default for HTTP 1.1), and I'm happy with this. However, I would like these kept-alive connections to time out after a certain amount of inactivity (e.g. 15 seconds). As I understand it, this would involve the server closing the connection actively.
This seems like a standard config option, and indeed there is such a setting for Apache. However, I can't see any way to do this in Netty/Play. It seems like the connections stay open until either the client closes them, or the socket times out at the OS level (about two hours).
Is this functionality supported out of the box? And if not, is it feasible to implement by hand (in particular, how do I know when a Channel was last used, or even if it's in use right now)?
You can put IdleStateHandler in the application pipeline.
At work, we have a client-server system where clients submit requests to a web server through HTTP. The server-side processing can sometimes take more than 60 seconds, which is the proxy timeout value set by our company's IT staff and cannot be changed. Is there a way to keep the HTTP connection alive for longer than 60 seconds (preferably for an arbitrarily long period of time), either by heartbeat messages from the server or the client?
I know there are HTTP 1.1 persistent connections, but that is not what I want.
Does HTTP have a keep-alive capability, or would this have to be done at the TCP level through some sort of socket option?
This should get you started.
Assuming you control both sides of the system, you can fake it by sending data back and forth periodically to keep the session from idling out -- most browsers won't terminate a connection as long as data is moving.
As a general suggestion, though, you're much better off re-designing the system so that the client submits a job request and then periodically queries (via Ajax) to see if it's completed. The Ajax queries can delay a while and the server can respond either when it has an affirmative status, or when the timeout period is near to elapsing. If the status-update request times out for some reason (timing errors or whatnot), the client simply re-submits it with no harm done and no visible disruption from the user's perspective.
Just have your server send a trickle of no-op data while it's doing the processing - if the result is in HTML, then something like:
<!-- keepalive -->
sent every 10 seconds should do.
I am implementing a minimalistic web server application on a Microcontroller. When I have several images (or CSS/JS) on the web page, the browser creates several connections and fetches them. But the Microcontroller can not catch up with this. Is there a way to tell the browser to stop pipelining and fetch them one by one ?
Note :: "Connection: close" is already in place.
I think Connection:close is exactly the wrong message. When the browser creates multiple connections, it precisely does not pipeline its requests - so ISTM that you want the browser to pipeline, instead of creating parallel connections.
So one step towards that would be to use HTTP 1.1, and keep the connection open. The browser would then reuse the TCP connection for further requests. This should allow the microcontroller to catch up.
Now, the browser might still try to create additional, parallel connections. The best reaction to that is to not accept any of these connections. So limit the number of parallel connections that you are serving (independent of client), and only read new requests when you are done reading the previous ones. In doing so, prefer to read from established connections over accepting new connections.
If you have access to the TCP stack of the controller, you might be able to tell what host a connection comes from, so you can accept connections from other browsers while limiting the number of connections from the same browser (something that you cannot do in the regular socket API).
"Pipelining" is something else; it means that the user agent sends additional requests on the same connection although the first one didn't complete yet (see http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2616.html#pipelining).
"Connection: close" doesn't seem to be relevant; that being said: is there a reason why you don't want the connection reused?
With respect to your question: no, I don't think you can prevent clients from doing that. Did you try limiting the maximum number of open connections on your server?
Same problem... However, Firefox loads my site very fast unlike Opera. I have not invented anything better than rejecting connections at an initial stage: SYN. I'm just answering with RST flag. But probably it doesn't suit Opera.
My device supports only two simultaneous connections.