Context; I'm writing a monitoring/management app for a VPS, which is running Linux
Reasons; I need to quickly be able to identify overloaded threads, high ram usage, badly behaving tasks.
Problems and current stage; Right now my code works well, I'm using systeminformation npm module to gather some system information like CPU usage, memory usage, disk status and task list, I put it into an object and send to all connected clients on a socket.io server. Problem is, it seems that this approach literally brings the host machine to it's knees (Both server and client are running locally, because I'm still working on them), by that I mean my CPU usage going from 6% to 80% in an instant, which is ridiculous. I want this updating to be atleast once a second, but if possible, 60/s. Point is, I need to either find a different way of retrieving the usage data of CPU (ideally with each thread as well), memory, disks and the list of tasks. I know this question is not very specific, but I believe this is something more people than just me encounter, that being that NodeJS just kills the machine (irony). The question remains, looking forward towards any help!
I tried different approaches before but they seemed to lower the usage by a bit or just up it because of the need to have more modules loaded. This generally leads me to the conclusion I just need a better module to handle this stuff.
Related
I am running a node app on a Digital Ocean cloud server, and the app merely services API requests. All client-side assets are served by a CDN, and the DB is accessed remotely, rather than stored on the server instance itself.
I have the choice of a greater number of vCPUs or RAM. I have no idea what that means in any way, so any feedback is a great help.
A single node.js server will run your Javascript on only one CPU so it doesn't help your Javascript run any faster to have more CPUs unless you cluster your app and run multiple node.js processes sharing the load of your app or unless there are other processes on the same server that are being used by your server.
Having more RAM (memory) will only improve things if you actually need more RAM. That depends entirely upon what the memory usage profile is of your app and how much RAM you already have available. Probably, you would already know if you were running out of RAM because you either get drastic slow-down when the OS starts page swapping or your process crashes when out of memory.
So, in order to know which would benefit you more, you really need more data on how your existing app is performing (whether it is ever bog down with CPU intensive operations and how much RAM it uses compared to how much you have available). It is quite possible that neither will actually matter to you - it totally depends upon the usage profile or your server process.
If you have no more data than this and have to make a choice, choose the vCPUs because there are some circumstances where it might help you (and gives you the option to go to clustering in the future if needed) whereas adding more RAM when you aren't even using what you already have won't help you at all.
We use clustering with our express apps on multi cpu boxes. Works well, we get the maximum use out of AWS linux servers.
We inherited an app we are fixing up. It's unusual in that it has two processes. It has an Express API portion, to take incoming requests. But the process that acts on those requests can run for several minutes, so it was build as a seperate background process, node calling python and maya.
Originally the two were tightly coupled, with the python script called by the request to upload the data. But this of course was suboptimal, as it would leave the client waiting for a response for the time it took to run, so it was rewritten as a background process that runs in a loop, checking for new uploads, and processing them sequentially.
So my question is this: if we have this separate node process running in the background, and we run clusters which starts up a process for each CPU, how is that going to work? Are we not going to get two node processes competing for the same CPU. We were getting a bit of weird behaviour and crashing yesterday, without a lot of error messages, (god I love node), so it's bit concerning. I'm assuming Linux will just swap the processes in and out as they are being used. But I wonder if it will be problematic, and I also wonder about someone getting their web session swapped out for several minutes while the longer running process runs.
The smart thing to do would be to rewrite this to run on two different servers, but the files that maya uses/creates are on the server's file system, and we were not given the budget to rebuild the way we should. So, we're stuck with this architecture for now.
Any thoughts now possible problems and how to avoid them would be appreciated.
From an overall architecture prospective, spawning 1 nodejs per core is a great way to go. You have a lot of interdependencies though, the nodejs processes are calling maya which may use mulitple threads (keep that in mind).
The part that is concerning to me is your random crashes and your "process that runs in a loop". If that process is just checking the file system you probably have a race condition where the nodejs processes are competing to work on the same input/output files.
In theory, 1 nodejs process per core will work great and should help to utilize all your CPU usage. Linux always swaps the processes in and out so that is not an issue. You could start multiple nodejs per core and still not have an issue.
One last note, be sure to keep an eye on your memory usage, several linux distributions on EC2 do not have a swap file enabled by default, running out of memory can be another silent app killer, best to add a swap file in case you run into memory issues.
I've been trying to track down a very slow, but persistent, native memory leak in a node.js app, and I've run out of strategies.
The process has what appears to be a level heap, but as the hours and days roll on, the RSS of the node.js process slowly grows. The process is a job handler that runs the same type of job for different parameters, over and over. The growth of the RSS of the process takes the same shape as the line plotting the cumulative number of jobs run, so each job run is somehow leaking a bit of memory.
Since the heap is more or less constant, the standard heap inspection tools don't seem to be much help.
Here's an example of what the memory consumption looks like:
Currently running on node 0.8.7. Each job does a number of database reads/writes, communicates with a redis instance, and does some web requests using mikael/request.
Have you updated to the newest release?
I know everyone says that :), I just felt like I should join the band wagon of updating my version of node.js on my production servers every two weeks when I think I have an issue. Sounds like a great idea doesn't it?
So I have been wondering the same thing, I have several node.js projects that I have been managing for a few months now (and also that I wrote last year). It seems that very slowly the V8 engine, or my node application, just eats memory and never frees it. (its slow enough that I only have to restart them every now and then)
Which is very stressful, especially considering that it should free up the RSS memory, or eventually peak out.
If you are interested in tracking objects being leaked inside of the runtime (and by that i mean javascript objects, functions, etc), mozilla has a very complete blog post about tracking down memory leaks and a few links to projects that can be used to do this.
For what ever reason they don't have this one on the list though. (it seems simple enough, I'm trying it out now on my own projects to see if it works, I tend to not get any of the V8 based ones to compile correctly)
heapdump and here is a link to a how to guide.
From my own experience the V8 engine seems to allocate memory, and hold onto it just incase it needs that exact same memory chunk later. Also my brother who has been using Node.js heavily for about 3 years has seen the same thing.
Also just for completeness (I know you already have), if any one would like to verify that you are not leaking memory inside of V8, an engineer from joyent has a pretty decent write up of how to track V8 memory leaks down.
We host about 150 websites (possibly scaling to 300+) that we are considering migrating to node.js. Most of the sites are fairly low traffic <1mil pageviews per month.
Should each website be it's own node.js process, or should we serve all websites using the same node.js process (or small set of load balanced processes). Is there a technical limit or a reasonable limit to the number of node processes per server?
Process per site: Feels inefficient, but I don't know if it actually is inefficient. Would ensure one buggy site doesn't affect other sites.
Process per core/small set of processes: Likely higher performance, but what happens when I need to update a sites codebase, won't it take down other sites? Also, code failures in one site would affect other sites.
Ideally, I would prefer one process per site so that we could host all sites from each worker server. That way when load increases we can just spin up another identical worker server and load balance between the two without having to arbitrarily say SiteA goes to ServerA and SiteB goes to ServerB. Any node.js gurus available to offer some wisdom?
All static file requests will be handled likely by Nginx or something like Varnish.
There are a lot of issues at play here. The big picture answer is, it depends... as it always does when you bring in the whole "performance" discussion. That being said, the simplest way to get a solid Node set up is to note the following basic facts about NodeJS, and I will also comment on their implications as they pertain to your questions.
The concurrency you get with Node works really good in certain situations, namely IO heavy operations. What we're really talking about here is minimizing the amount of downtime to wait for the next request. Because of this, Node works really well in an environment where there is one process per core on a machine. Node does really well at maximizing the amount of CPU available to serve requests under heavy load. This being said, if you have literally ZERO other work going on in your even loop, you can see minor performance increases (in terms of max requests/second/processor core) by having multiple node processes per core. But, I've never seen any benefit from increasing this number past 3. Even under circumstances where the entire event loop was literally just a file server.
On the process per site comment. This is a bad idea for many reasons. For one, a well put together node server can process thousands of requests per second. Our (company name omitted) servers, hosted through Amazon EC2 on medium clusters (lots of ram, mid CPU clock, 4 cores), typically fail around 3000 requests per second per cluster. Our servers do a fair bit of CPU work, for simple file servers I'm sure you can do much better. Strictly speaking, sure, per site, you will be able to serve more requests by launching each site in its own process/core/escalating quickly here! But it's not necessary from a cost and over complication of your architecture point of view. What I WOULD recommend, is investing in a setup with a lot of RAM. The ability for your server to cache often requested files will effect your performance infinitely more than launching an abundance of processes for a given machine.
On the whole RAM thing. The number of processes you want to launch for a given core is dependant on two things. One is how much synchronous work done in your event loop. The more synchronous work, the more time between a given request coming in and the event loop being ready to adress the next one. If you have a busy event loop, you will be in a situation where you require more processes/CPU Core. The other thing that can effect this, particularly relevant for file servers, is the amount of RAM. Node runs much better in a high ram environment, but you can say this about ANY file server really... What this has to do with, is the number of active asynchronous operations. One downside of the way node works, is under heavy loads, you can get a large number of event handlers active at once. This is great for concurrency/simplicity, however, if your server is busy waiting around for a lot of async disk/IO to happen it will slow down and crash much sooner than if you had plenty of RAM. If you don't have enough RAM to handle all of these event handlers, you will want to keep to the 1 process/core arrangement. Otherwise, it is easier for Node to spin up many event handlers simultaneously, and again cause you to crash sooner than you would otherwise.
I don't really have enough information to tell you what you SHOULD do. This depends entirely too much on the architecture of your specific server, sites, size of your sites, amount of data... etc. But these three pieces of knowledge are the basic things that help you get the most out of your Node server. To be honest, your idea about load balancing mixed with the considerations above, should do nicely for you. Surely, microoptimizations are possible, but if you do these things, you should easily see requests/second in the thousands before you start experiencing crashes because of DDOS type of conditions.
No, don't do it. Keep it simple! And check out http://12factor.net/.
A few hundred processes is nothing compared to the simplicity you otherwise lose. It would be a terrible decision, on so many levels, to have more than one site (or, "logical application unit") served by a single Node process.
If you're asking this question, you may want to explore Node more before you "migrate" to Node. Error handling and separation of concerns are more complicated in Node than in other situations. Specifically, neither the domain nor cluster APIs are mature. But really it's the philosophy of clean and simple application deployment that you'd be violating. I could go on and on.
This problem is killing the stability of my production servers.
To recap, the basic idea is that my node server(s) sometimes intermittently slow down, sometimes resulting in Gateway Timeouts. As best as I can tell from my logs, something is blocking the node thread (meaning that the incoming request is not accepted), but I cannot for the life of me figure out what.
The problem ranges in severity. Sometimes what should be <100ms requests take ~10 seconds to complete; sometimes they never even get accepted by the node server at all. In short, it is as though some random task is working and blocking the node thread for a period of time, thus slowing down (or even blocking) incoming requests; the one thing I can say for sure is that the need-to-fix-symptom is a "Gateway Timeout".
The issue comes and goes without warning. I have not been able to correlate it against CPU usage, RAM usage, uptime, or any other relevant statistic. I've seen the servers handle a large load fine, and then have this error with a small load, so it does not even appear to be load-related. It is not unusual to see the error around 1am PST, which is the smallest load time of the day! Restarting the node app does seem to maybe make the problem go away for a while, but that really doesn't tell me much. I do wonder if it might be a bug in node.js... not very comforting, considering it is killing my production servers.
The first thing I did was to make sure I had upgraded node.js to the latest (0.8.12), as well as all my modules (here they are). Of course, I also have plenty of error catchers in place. I'm not doing anything funky like printing out lots to the console or writing to lots of files.
At first, I thought it was outbound HTTP requests blocking the incoming socket, because the express middleware was not even picking up the inbound request, but I gave up the theory because it looks like the node thread itself became busy.
Next, I went through all my code with JSHint and fixed literally every single warning, including a few accidental globals (forgetting to write "var") but this didn't help
After that, I assumed that perhaps I was running out of memory. But, my heap snapshots via nodetime are looking pretty good now (described below).
Still thinking that memory might be an issue, I took a look at garbage collection. I enabled the --nouse-idle-notification flag and did some more code optimization to NULL objects when they were not needed.
Still convinced that memory was the issue, I added the --expose-gc flag and executed the gc(); command every minute. This did not change anything, except to occasionally make requests a bit slower perhaps.
In a desperate attempt, I setup the "cluster" module to use 2 workers and automatically restart them every 30 min. Still, no luck.
I increased the ulimit to over 10,000 and kept an eye on the open files. There seem to be < 300 open files (or sockets) per node.js app, and increasing the ulimit thus had no impact.
I've been logging my server with nodetime and here's the jist of it:
CentOS 5.2 running on the Amazon Cloud (m1.large instance)
Greater than 5000 MB free memory at all times
Less than 150 MB heap size at all times
CPU usage is less than 60% at all times
I've also checked my MongoDB servers, which have <5% CPU usage and no requests are taking > 100ms to complete, so I highly doubt there's a bottleneck.
I've wrapped (almost) all my code using Q-promises (see code sample), and of course have avoided Sync() calls like the plague. I've tried to replicate the issue on my testing server (OSX), but have had little luck. Of course, this may be just because the production servers are being used by so many people in so many unpredictable ways that I simply cannot replicate via stress tests...
Many months after I first asked this question, I found the answer.
In a nutshell, the problem was that I was not piping a big asset when transferring it from one server to another. In other words, I was downloading an image from one server, before uploading it to a S3 bucket. Instead of streaming the download into the upload, I downloaded the file into memory, and then uploaded it.
I'm not sure why this did not show up as a memory spike, or elsewhere in my statistics.
My guess is Mongoose. If you are storing large payloads in Mongo, Mongoose can be pretty slow due to how it builds the Mongoose objects. See https://github.com/LearnBoost/mongoose/issues/950 for more details on the problem. If this is the problem you wouldn't see it in Mongo itself since the query returns quickly, but object instantiation could take 75x the query time.
Try setting up timers around (process.hrtime()) before and after you the Mongoose objects are being created to see if that might be the problem. If this is the problem, I would switch to using the node Mongo driver directly instead of going through Mongoose.
You are heavily leaking memory, try setting every object to null as soon as you don't need it anymore! Read this.
More information about hunting down memory leaks can be found here.
Give special attention to having multiple references to the same object and check if you have circular references, those are a pain to debug but will help you very much.
Try invoking the garbage collector manually every minute or so (I don't know if you can do this in node.js cause I'm more of a c++ and php coder). From my years of experience working with c++ I can tell you the most likely cause of your application slowing down over time is memory leaks, find them and plug them, you'll be ok!
Also assuming you're not caching and/or processing images, audio or video in memory or anything like that 150M heap is a lot! Those could be hundreds of thousands or even millions of small objects.
You don't have to be running out of memory for your application to slow down... just searching for free memory with that many objects already allocated is a huge job for the memory allocator, it takes a lot of time to allocate each new object and as you leak more and more memory that time only increases.
Is "--nouse-idle-connection" a mistake? do you really mean "--nouse_idle_notification".
I think it's maybe some issues about gc with too many tiny objects.
node is single process, so watch the most busy cpu core is much important than the load.
when your program is slow, you can execute "gdb node pid" and "bt" to see what node is busy doing.
What I'd do is set up a parallel node instance on the same server with some kind of echo service and test that one. If it runs fine, you narrow down your problem to your program code (and not a scheduler/OS-level problem). Then, step by step, include the modules and test again. Certainly this is a lot of work, takes long and I dont know if it is doable on your system.
If you need to get this working now, you can go the NASA redundancy route:
Bring up a second copy of your production servers, and put a proxy in front of them which routes each request to both stacks and returns the first response. I don't recommend this as a perfect long-term solution but it should help significantly reduce issues in production now, and help you gather log data that you could replay to recreate the issues on non-production servers.
Obviously, this is straight-forward for read requests, but more complex for commands which write to the db.
We have a similar problem with our Node.js server. It didn't scale well for weeks and we had tried almost everything as you had. Our problem was in the implicit backlog value which is set very low for high-concurrent environments.
http://nodejs.org/api/http.html#http_server_listen_port_hostname_backlog_callback
Setting the backlog to a significantly higher value (e.g. 10000) as well as tune networking in our kernel (/etc/sysctl.conf on Linux) as described in manual section helped a lot. From this time forward we don't have any timeouts in our Node.js server.