Is there a way to find out if a HttpServletRequest is aborted?
I'm writing an instant browser application (some kind of chat): The clients asks for new events in a loop using AJAX-HTTP-Requests. The server (Tomcat) handles the requests in a HttpServlet. If there are no new events for this client, the server delays the reply until a new event arrives or a timeout occurs (30sec).
Now I want to identify clients that are no longer polling. Therefore, I start a kick-Timer at the end of a request which is stopped when a new request arrives. If the client closes the browser window the TCP-Connection is closed and the HTTP-Request is aborted.
Problem: The client does not run into the kick-Timeout because the Servlet still handles the event request - sleeping and waiting for an event or timeout.
It would be great if I could somehow listen for connection abort events and then notify the waiting request in order to stop it. But I couldn't find anything like that in the HttpServletRequest or HttpServletResponse...
This probably won't help the OP any more, but it might help others trying to detect aborted HTTP connections in HttpServlet in general, as I was having a similar problem and finally found an answer.
The key is that when the client cancels the request, normally the only way for the server to find out is to send some data back to the client, which will fail in that case. I wanted to detect when a client stops waiting for a long computation on server, so I ended up periodically writing a single character to response body through HttpServletResponse's writer. To force sending the data to the client, you must call HttpServletResponse.flushBuffer(), which throws ClientAbortException if the connection is aborted.
You are probably using some sort of thread-notification (Semaphores or Object.wait) to hold and release the Servlet threads. How about adding a timeout (~10s) to the wait, then somehow checking whether the connection is still alive and then continuing the wait for another 10s, if the connection is still there.
I don't know whether there are reliable ways to poll the "liveness" of the connection (e.g. resp.getOutputStream not throwing an Exception) and if so, which way is the best (most reliable, least CPU intense).
It seems like having waiting requests could degrade the performance of your system pretty quickly. The threads that respond to requests would get used up fast if requests are held open. You could try completing all requests (and returning "null" to your clients if there is no message), and having a thread on the back-end that keeps track of how long it's been since clients have polled. The thread could mark a client as being inactive.
Related
I have fundumental question about how async requests work at top level.
Imagin if we have a top level route called HomePage(). This route is an async route and within this route we call to 10 different APIs before sending the response(image it takes like 5 seconds, remember this is an example to understand the concept and these numbers are for learning purposes). All of these api requests are awaited. So the request handler just releases the thread hanlding this request and goes to handle other requests until the response for these apis come back. So lets add this constraint. Our network card can handle only 1 connection and that one is held open till the response for the request to HomePage is ready. Therefor we cannot make any other requests to the server so whats the difference if this whole thing was sync from the beggining. We cannot drop the connection to the first request to HomePage because if that's the case then how are we ever going to send back the response for that request and we cannot handle new requests because the connection is kept open.
I suspect that my problem is how the reponse is sent back on top level async routes.
Can anybody give a deep dive explaination on how these requests are handled that can take more requests and still send back the response(because if it can send back a response the connection HAS TO HAVE KEPT ALIVE). Examples would be much appreciated.
So lets add this constraint. Our network card can handle only 1 connection
That constraint cannot exist. Network cards handle packets, not connections. Connections are a virtual construct that exist in the host computer.
Can anybody give a deep dive explaination on how these requests are handled that can take more requests and still send back the response(because if it can send back a response the connection HAS TO HAVE KEPT ALIVE).
Of course the connection is kept alive. The top-level async method will return the thread to the thread pool, where it is available to handle any other requests.
If you have some artificial constraint on your web app that prevents it from having more than one connection, then there won't be any other requests to handle, and the thread pool threads will do nothing.
Say I have a webserivce used internally by other webservices with an average response time of 1 minute.
What are the pros and cons of such a service with "synchronous" responses versus making the service return id of the request, process it in the background and make the clients poll for results?
Is there any cons with HTTP connections which stay active for more than one minute? Does the default keep alive of TCP matters here?
Depending on your application it may matter. Couple of things worth mentioning are !
HTTP protocol is sync
There is very wide misconception that HTTP is async. Http is synchronous protocol but your client could deal it async. E.g. when you call any service using http, your http client may schedule is on the background thread (async). However The http call will be waiting until either it's timeout or response is back , during all this time the http call chain is awaiting synchronously.
Sockets
Since HTTP uses socket and there is hard limit on sockets. Every HTTP connection (if created new every time) opens up new socket . if you have hundreds of requests at a time you can image how many http calls are scheduled synchronously and you may run of sockets. Not sure for other operation system but on windows even if you are done with request sockets they are not disposed straight away and stay for couple of mins.
Network Connectivity
Keeping http connection alive for long is not recommended. What if you loose network partially or completely ? your http request would timeout and you won't know the status at all.
Keeping all these things in mind it's better to schedule long running tasks on background process.
If you keep the user waiting while your long job is running on server, you are tying up a valuable HTTP connection while waiting.
Best practice from RestFul point of view is to reply an HTTP 202 (Accepted) and return a response with the link to poll.
If you want to hang the client while waiting, you should set a request timeout at the client end.
If you've some Firewalls in between, that might drop connections if they are inactive for some time.
Higher Response Throughput
Typically, you would want your OLTP (Web Server) to respond quickly as possible, Since your queuing the task on the background, your web server can handle more requests which results to higher response throughput and processing capabilities.
More Memory Friendly
Queuing long running task on background jobs via messaging queues, prevents abusive usage of web server memory. This is good because it will increase the Out of memory threshold of your application.
More Resilient to Server Crash
If you queue task on the background and something goes wrong, the job can be queued to a dead-letter queue which helps you to ultimately fix problems and re-process the request that caused your unhandled exceptions.
I understand an HTTP request will result in a response with a code and optional body.
If we call the originator of the request the 'client' and the recipient of the request the 'server'.
Then the sequence is
Client sends request
Server receives request
Server sends response
Client receive response
Is it possible for the Server to complete step 3 but step 4 does not happen (due to dropped connection, application error etc).
In other words: is it possible for the Server to 'believe' the client should have received the response, but the client for some reason has not?
Network is inherently unreliable. You can only know for sure a message arrived if the other party has acknowledged it, but you never know it did not.
Worse, with HTTP, the only acknowledge for the request is the answer and there is no acknowledge for the answer. That means:
The client knows the server has processed the request if it got the response. If it does not, it does not know whether the request was processed.
The server never knows whether the client got the answer.
The TCP stack does normally acknowledge the answer when closing the socket, but that information is not propagated to the application layer and it would not be useful there, because the stack can acknowledge receipt and then the application might not process the message anyway because it crashes (or power failed or something) and from perspective of the application it does not matter whether the reason was in the TCP stack or above it—either way the message was not processed.
The easiest way to handle this is to use idempotent operations. If the server gets the same request again, it has no side-effects and the response is the same. That way the client, if it times out waiting for the response, simply sends the request again and it will eventually (unless the connection was torn out never to be fixed again) get a response and the request will be completed.
If all else fails, you need to record the executed requests and eliminate the duplicates in the server. Because no network protocol can do that for you. It can eliminate many (as TCP does), but not all.
There is a specific section on that point on the HTTP RFC7230 6.6 Teardown (bold added):
(...)
If a server performs an immediate close of a TCP connection, there is
a significant risk that the client will not be able to read the last
HTTP response.
(...)
To avoid the TCP reset problem, servers typically close a connection
in stages. First, the server performs a half-close by closing only
the write side of the read/write connection. The server then
continues to read from the connection until it receives a
corresponding close by the client, or until the server is reasonably
certain that its own TCP stack has received the client's
acknowledgement of the packet(s) containing the server's last
response. Finally, the server fully closes the connection.
So yes, this response sent step is a quite complex stuff.
Check for example the Lingering close section on this Apache 2.4 document, or the complex FIN_WAIT/FIN_WAIT2 pages for Apache 2.0.
So, a good HTTP server should maintain the socket long enough to be reasonably certain that it's OK on the client side. But if you really need to acknowledge something in a web application, you should use a callback (image callback, ajax callback) asserting the response was fully loaded in the client browser (so another HTTP request). That means it's not atomic as you said, or at least not transactional like you could expect from a relational database. You need to add another request from the client, that maybe you'll never get (because the server had crash before receiving the acknowledgement), etc.
My understanding of the (JavaScript) hub client is that if a connection is lost, it enters a 'Reconnecting...' phase which attempts to reconnect. If it can't do so, it will enter a 'Disconnected' state which is where it'll stay until asked to start again.
How long is the 'Reconnecting...' phase meant to last before it gives up? I've read 40 seconds before, but my client seems to take much less time - about 10, maybe less. [EDIT: Nevermind this part, I had configured a 10 disconnect on the server as a test... and forgot. I understand this is set by the server during the negotiate. Makes sense!] ... I'd prefer to have the client continually retry until it is told to abort - can this be done, and would it cause issues?
Another question; during the Reconnecting... phase, if I attempt to call a hub method (again, in JS) it never seems to complete. I'm using the returned Deferred to check for 'done' and 'fail' events, but neither seems to get called. Is this by design?
Thanks.
You can definitely have it continually reconnect.
Handle the disconnected event on the client and call connection.start:
$.connection.hub.disconnected(function() {
setTimeout(function() {
$.connection.hub.start();
}, 5000); // Re-start connection after 5 seconds
});
The only issues this would cause is that you could potentially be triggering infinite requests to a server that isn't there for client machines. This becomes even more troublesome when you introduce the mobile market into the situation (drains battery like crazy).
When you attempt to call a hub method while reconnecting SignalR will try to send your command. Since there are 2 channels, one for receiving data and one for sending, (for all transports except web sockets) in some cases it can still be possible to send requests while your offline. Therefore SignalR does not know if a request fails until the browser tells it that it could not successfully make the request.
Hope this helps!
I might have a clue... Touching the Web.config produces an appPool Recycle, meaning that a new worker process will be created for new requests while the existing process will continue for a while until the remaining requests end or the timeout is reached. Request that do not end in the timeout period are terminated.
Signalr client reconnects to the new process while the long running task is running in the old process, so when on the long running task you do
GlobalHost.ConnectionManager.GetHubContext<ForceHub>();
you actually get a reference for "old" hub while the client is connected to the "new" hub.
That's why the test preformed by Wasp worked: he was making a new request to publish on the signalr hub that was processed in the newly created worker process.
You could try to configure a singalr backplane (https://www.asp.net/signalr/overview/performance/scaleout-in-signalr), it’s really easy to configure it using Sql Server (https://www.asp.net/signalr/overview/performance/scaleout-with-sql-server). The backplane should be capable of connect the two worker processes and hopefully you will get the notification on the client.
If this is the problem, notifications generated by new requests will work even without the backplane. Notice that the real purpose of the backplane is to scale out signalr, this is, to connect a farm of WebServers between them.
Also keep in mind that running long-running task inside IIS is as task hard to achieve as, among other things, IIS does regular appPool recycles and has timeout limits for the requests to execute. I recommend that you read the following post: http://www.hanselman.com/blog/HowToRunBackgroundTasksInASPNET.aspx
“If you think you can just write a background task yourself, it's likely you'll get it wrong. I'm not impugning your skills, I'm just saying it's subtle. Plus, why should you have to?”
Hope this helps
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.