I am making an http request which ends up taking more than 8 mins. For me, this long running request work fine. I am able to get a response back to my browser without any issues. (I am located on the same network as the server).
However, for some users, the browser never returns any response. (Note: When the same http request executes in 1 min, these users are able to see the response without any problem)
These users happen to be on another network. And there probably is a firewall or two between their location and the server.
I can see on their fiddler that the request is just sitting there waiting for a response.
I am right now assuming that firewall is killing the idle http connection.. but I am not sure.
If you have any idea why the response never gets back, or why the connection never breaks.. it will be really helpful.
Also: Is it possible to fix this issue by writing an Applet that somehow manages to keep the sending dummy signal to the server, even after having sent (flushed) the request to the server?
The users might be behind a connection tracking firewall/NAT gateway. Such gateways tend to drop the TCP connection when nothing has happened for a period of time. In a custom protocol you could send some kind of heartbeat messags to keep the TCP connection alive, but with HTTP you don't have proper control over that connection, nor does HTTP facilitate what's needed to keep a tcp connection "alive".
The usual way to handle long running jobs initated by an HTTP request is to fire off that job in the background, sending a proper response back to the client immediately and have an applet/ajax request poll the status of that job and returning the result when it's done.
If you need a quick fix, see if you can control any timeouts on the gateways between the server and the user.
Have you considered that the users might be using a browser which has a HTTP timeout which causes the browser to stop waiting for a response after a certain amount of time?
http://tldp.org/HOWTO/TCP-Keepalive-HOWTO/overview.html
http://tldp.org/HOWTO/TCP-Keepalive-HOWTO/usingkeepalive.html
If you are using Linux machine try
# cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_keepalive_time
7200
# cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_keepalive_intvl
75
# cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_keepalive_probes
9
# echo 1500 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_keepalive_time
# echo 500 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_keepalive_intvl
# echo 20 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_keepalive_probes
Related
I had the following issue on a system that I supported ~7 years ago. We never got to the bottom of it, and focus shifted onto other issues. I was recently reminded of it, and wondered if anyone would know what was going on. But alas I'll be a little short on details. Sorry.
The Setup
I had a farm of web servers sitting behind a load balancer. The servers were hosting a system that would receive HTTP requests (XML &/or SOAP) from clients, then for each one kick-off a bunch of further HTTP requests to 3rd-party-suppliers, wait for the suppliers' responses, process and combine the results and respond to the client's request.
Think insurance comparison, but as Business-To-Business XML service.
The whole processing would take 5s of seconds, from receiving the initial client request to them sending back a response to that original HTTP request, and the server would be processing 10s or 100s of requests in parallel (i.e. at any given point, a given webserver would have many client Requests that had come in, and been logged, but not yet been responded to.)
We had detailed logging which record the reciept of the requests, including origin IP and which server was processing the request, and record when a response was sent.
All client requests were sent to a single IP address (well, URL), which was the address of the loadbalancer, which would then forward requests to the webservers, which weren't individually accessible to the internet (they didn't have public IP addresses).
Our load balancer would allow us to take individual web-servers out of rotation, for maintenance.
When we did that we could watch the DB logs, and see new requests stop coming in, and the existing request gradually get completed, until there were now outstanding requests and the server was idle.
The problem
We found that sometimes, when we took a server out of rotation ... it wouldn't entirely stop receiving requests. You could see the large bulk of request suddenly stop coming in, but it would still receive a trickle of fresh requests (I don't know ... maybe 0.1% of normal load, maybe less?). I think the longest we left it going was maybe ... 10 minutes?
Notably we realised that all of those requests were coming from a single client/IP address (I don't remember which).
I forget whether other (still-in-rotation) webservers were still receiving requests from this client, but I think they were?
If we rebooted the webserver, no further requests would come in after restarting.
Web stack was Windows, IIS, ASP.NET; pretty old school even at the time. All servers individually owned and configured.
What was happening?
We vaguely waved our hands and asserted that the client's integration with us was "holding an HTTP tunnel open and sending multiple requests through it", rather than sending each request separately, and thus was maintaining that tunnel even after the LB stopped sending new requests to that server. But that was BS-waffle, and since we never needed to actually understand what was going on, we ignored it and moved on with our lives :)
But I'd still like to know what we were seeing, if anyone can diagnose it from that description.
We vaguely waved our hands and asserted that the client's integration with us was "holding an HTTP tunnel open and sending multiple requests through it", rather than sending each request separately, and thus was maintaining that tunnel even after the LB stopped sending new requests to that server.
That sounds like a good explanation.
Normally, a LB will refuse new connections to a removed server, but will allow open connections to live on until they naturally close. This is known as "connection draining" or "graceful shutdown".
If one of your clients had HTTP keepalive on, and was holding a TCP connection open and sending HTTP requests through it for a long time, it would give the symptoms you describe.
Most LBs will have a configuration knob for how long to wait for connections to close before force-closing them during this "connection draining" time. You can set a timeout here to avoid this scenario if it is a problem for you.
The HTTP connection handling behaviour of clients will vary at the client's discretion, to a large extent. Perhaps most of your clients were of one type (say, web browsers) and weren't holding open a single connection for 10 mins, but perhaps one client was different (say, a programmatic HTTP API client)?
Further reading about "connection draining" on AWS Load Balancers here (the exact details will vary by LB vendor): https://docs.aws.amazon.com/elasticloadbalancing/latest/classic/config-conn-drain.html
Further reading about HTTP keep alive here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_persistent_connection
I am talking about only one case here.
client sent a request to server -> server received it and returned a response -> unfortunately the response dropped.
I have only one question about this.
Is this case even possible? If it's possible then what should the response code be, or will client simply see it as read timeout?
As I want to sync status between client/server and want 100% accuracy no matter how poor the network is, the answer to this question can greatly affect the client's 'retry on failure' strategy.
Any comment is appreciated.
Yes, the situation you have described is possible and occurs regularly. It is called "packet loss". Since the packet is lost, the response never reaches the client, so no response code could possibly be received. Web browsers will display this as "Error connecting to server" or similar.
HTTP requests and responses are generally carried inside TCP packets. If a TCP packet carrying the HTTP response does not arrive in the expected time window, the request is retransmitted. The request will only be retransmitted a certain number of times before a timeout error will occur and the connection is considered broken or dead. (The number of attempts before TCP timeout can be configured on both the client and server sides.)
Is this case even possible?
Yes. It's easy to see why if you picture a physical cable between the client and the server. If I send a request down the cable to the server, and then, before the server has a chance to respond, unplug the cable, the server will receive the request, but the client will never "hear" the response.
If it's possible then what should the response code be, or will client simply see it as read timeout?
It will be a timeout. If we go back to our physical cable example, the client is sitting waiting for a response that will never come. Hopefully, it will eventually give up.
It depends on exactly what tool or library you're using how this is wrapped up, however - it might give you a specific error code for "timeout" or "network error"; it might wrap it up as some internal 5xx status code; it might raise an exception inside your code; etc.
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.
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 need a way to detect a missing response to a long running HTTP POST request. This problem arises when the network infrastructure (firewalls, proxies, unplugged cables, etc.) drops the response packets. The server may detect this failure, but the client cannot send additional bytes after the POST to probe the state of the TCP connection. The failure may be limited to a single TCP connection. For example I may be able to subsequently open a new TCP connection to the server.
I'm looking for a solution that still uses HTTP POST and does not change the duration of the server side processing.
Some solutions that I can think of are:
Provide a side channel interface to retrieve request & response history. If the history lists the response as having been send (presumably resulting in a TCP error) but I have not yet received it within a reasonable time I can generate a local error.
Use an X header to request that the server deliver "spurious" 100 Continue provisional responses on a regular interval. If I fail to see an expected 100 Continue or a non-provisional response I can generate a local error.
Is there a state of the art solution for this problem?
It sounds to me like you are using Soap for something that would be much better done using a stateful connection, or a server side push technology.