Some Concepts:
TPS means Transactions per second
Response time is the total amount of time it takes to respond to a request for service
Is this formula true?
TPS = number of concurrent users / response time
It is true if transactions happen sequentially and in only one thread (on one TCP connection) per user. In reality, however, when talking about web browsers, they will use multiple concurrent connections when talking to a host. 6 concurrent connections is quite common, so the host will then get TPS = 6 x concurrent users / response time.
Also, the browser will sometimes be blocked and not fetch things. Sometimes because it is executing code, sometimes because it cannot perform some operations simultaneously with other operations. See http://www.browserscope.org for more info.
Also, of course, clients (whether they are humans using a browser or e.g. a mobile phone app talking to its backend via a REST API) don't usually make requests back to back, continuously, at the highest possible rate. That is probably not a very realistic test case. Usually, clients will make a bunch of requests and then fall silent for a while, until the user does something new in the application that requires more data from the backend.
Related
I am making a live app with the use of websockets (express-ws npm package) in node.js.
The users send a message via ws every 10 seconds. Each of such requests takes about 1-1.5 milliseconds to handle (I have made some .time benchmarks). Everything works perfectly while there are less than ~9000 connections. However, if it grows above that, those 9000 requests every 10 seconds take 9000*1.5=13500ms > 10s and some users do not get their requests handled (as node.js is single-threaded). This is my first live app that gets so many online users at the same time so I do not know what to do. How to handle that many connections correctly?
I have read some articles about that and I have found some solutions which do not seem to work for me (at least I do not understand how to make them working).
Use the cluster module. The problem is that the requests have to share variables. I have an array of data which is updated or read during every request and clusters, as I have read and tested, are basically another processes which cannot share memory.
The same applies to worker_threads. They can kinda share memory, but I have to set up the communication between all threads and it still comes up to handling 9000 connections in 10 seconds which are not significantly faster than 9000 connections that have been in the beginning (that 9000 requests are simply a database search and an update with a few validations whether a user is registered and has provided valid data). Probably, if I throw the validation to a worker thread, the connections limit will grow up to 13000, but it is still insufficient.
I thought of creating a separate server on an another port (probably even in c++) and send all the requests that have passed the validation there (websocket between the servers). That seems like the best solution as for now but it still comes up to handling 9000 requests in one thread which will not make it much better.
So, how do I handle that many requests that need to share a variable efficiently? How do game servers which need to update the states of thousands of players multiple times per second do that?
I have an API which allows other microservices to call on to check whether a particular product exists in the inventory. The API takes in only one parameter which is the ID of the product.
The API is served through API Gateway in Lambda and it simply queries against a Postgres RDS to check for the product ID. If it finds the product, it returns the information about the product in the response. If it doesn't, it just returns an empty response. The SQL is basically this:
SELECT * FROM inventory where expired = false and product_id = request.productId;
However, the problem is that many services are calling this particular API very heavily to check the existence of products. Not only that, the calls often come in bursts. I assume those services loop through a list of product IDs and check for their existence individually, hence the burst.
The number of concurrent calls on the API has resulted in it making many queries to the database. The rate can burst beyond 30 queries per sec and there can be a few hundred thousands of requests to fulfil. The queries are mostly the same, except for the product ID in the where clause. The column has been indexed and it takes an average of only 5-8ms to complete. Still, the connection to the database occasionally time out when the rate gets too high.
I'm using Sequelize as my ORM and the error I get when it time out is SequelizeConnectionAcquireTimeoutError. There is a good chance that the burst rate was too high and it max'ed out the pool too.
Some options I have considered:
Using a cache layer. But I have noticed that, most
of the time, 90% of the product IDs in the requests are not repeated.
This would mean that 90% of the time, it would be a cache miss and it
will still query against the database.
Auto scale up the database. But because the calls are bursty and I don't
know when they may come, the autoscaling won't complete in time to
avoid the time out. Moreover, the query is a very simple select statement and the CPU of the RDS instance hardly crosses 80% during the bursts. So I doubt scaling it would do much too.
What other techniques can I do to avoid the database from being hit hard when the API is getting burst calls which are mostly unique and difficult to cache?
Use cache in the boot time
You can load all necessary columns into an in-memory data storage (redis). Every update in database (cron job) will affect cached data.
Problems: memory overhead of updating cache
Limit db calls
Create a buffer for ids. Store n ids and then make one query for all of them. Or empty the buffer every m seconds!
Problems: client response time extra process for query result
Change your database
Use NoSql database for these data. According to this article and this one, I think choosing NoSql database is a better idea.
Problems: multiple data stores
Start with a covering index to handle your query. You might create an index like this for your table:
CREATE INDEX inv_lkup ON inventory (product_id, expired) INCLUDE (col, col, col);
Mention all the columns in your SELECT in the index, either in the main list of indexed columns or in the INCLUDE clause. Then the DBMS can satisfy your query completely from the index. It's faster.
You could start using AWS lambda throttling to handle this problem. But, for that to work the consumers of your API will need to retry when they get 429 responses. That might be super-inconvenient.
Sorry to say, you may need to stop using lambda. Ordinary web servers have good stuff in them to manage burst workload.
They have an incoming connection (TCP/IP listen) queue. Each new request coming in lands in that queue, where it waits until the server software accept the connection. When the server is busy requests wait in that queue. When there's a high load the requests wait for a bit longer in that queue. In nodejs's case, if you use clustering there's just one of these incoming connection queues, and all the processes in the cluster use it.
The server software you run (to handle your API) has a pool of connections to your DBMS. That pool has a maximum number of connections it it. As your server software handles each request, it awaits a connection from the pool. If no connection is immediately available the request-handling pauses until one is available, then handles it. This too smooths out the requests to the DBMS. (Be aware that each process in a nodejs cluster has its own pool.)
Paradoxically, a smaller DBMS connection pool can improve overall performance, by avoiding too many concurrent SELECTs (or other queries) on the DBMS.
This kind of server configuration can be scaled out: a load balancer will do. So will a server with more cores and more nodejs cluster processes. An elastic load balancer can also add new server VMs when necessary.
DISCLAIMER: If this post is off-topic to this site, please recommend a site where this post would be appropriate.
On Ubuntu 18.04, in bash, I am writing a network-based, threaded application that requires multiple servers. It receives files through the network and processes them, ultimately making an API call that finishes the processing and logs the results to a database for later retrieval and reporting.
So far I have written the application using non-threaded programming models and concepts. That means the files are processed one at a time in real-time. This works great if there is no sudden burst of files and/or a backlog of files to process. The main bottle neck has been the way I sequentially send files to the API one after another, waiting until the entire operation has taken place for one file and the API returns the results. The API has a rate limit of 8 calls per second. But since each call takes from .75 to 1 second, my program waits until the operation is done and only processes about 1 file per second through the API. In short, I did not have to worry about scheduling API calls because I could barely do one call per second.
Since the capacity is there to process 8 files per second, and I need more speed, I have been converting my single-threaded, sequential application into a parallel, scalable, multi-threaded application. This new version can spawn enough threads to send 8 files per second to the REST API and much more. So now I have the opposite problem. I am sending too many requests per second to the REST API and am in danger of triggering penalties, etc. Ultimately, when my traffic is higher, I will upgrade my subscription to the API and get more calls per second, but this current dilemma has got me thinking about how to schedule the API calls with different threads.
The purpose of this post is to discuss an idea about how to schedule these REST API calls across various threads. Specifically, I want to discuss how to coordinate timing and usage of the API while maintaining efficiency and yet not overloading the API. In short, I want to coordinate a group of threads so that the API is properly used. Not too fast and not too slow.
Independent of my application, this idea could be useful in a number of generically similar scenarios.
My idea is to create an "air traffic controller" ("ATC") so that the threads of the application have a centralized timing authority to check when they are ready to submit files to the REST API. The ATC would know how many time slots/calls per time period (in this case, calls per second) the API can schedule. The ATC would be listening for the threads to request a time slot ("launch code") which would give them a time slot in the future to perform their API call. The ATC would decide based on the schedule of other launch codes that it has already handed out.
In my case, from the start of the upload of the file to the API, it could take 0.75 to 1 second to complete the processing and receive a response from the API. This does not affect the count of new API calls that can be performed. It is just a consideration of how long the threads will be waiting once they call the API. It may not be relevant to this overall discussion.
Each thread would obviously have to do some error handling. If the API timed out or threw an error, then the thread would have to handle it and get back in line with the ATC -if appropriate- and ask for a new launch code. Maybe it should report the error to the ATC for centralized logging?
In situations where the file processing needs burst above 8 files per second, there would be a scheduling backlog where the threads should wait their turn as assigned by the ATC.
Here are some other considerations:
Function
The ATC would be a lightweight daemon that does the following:
- listens on some TCP port
- receives a request
security token (?), thread id, priority
- authenticates the request (?)
- examines schedule
- reserves the next available time slot
- returns the launch code
security token (?), current time, launch timing offset to current time, URL and auth token for the API
- expunged expired launch codes
The ATC would need the following:
- to know what port it is supposed to run on
- to know how many slots per time period it was set to schedule
(e.g. 8 per second)
- to have a super fast read/write access to the schedule (associative array?)
- to know the URL and corresponding auth token for the thread to use
- maybe to know multiple URLs and auth tokens for load balancing
Here are more things to consider:
Security
How could we keep the ATC secure while ensuring high performance?
Network-level security (e.g. firewalls allowing only the IP addresses of the file-processing servers?)
Auth tokens or logins and passwords?
Performance
What would the requirements be for this ATC server? Would this be taxing to a CPU and memory?
Timing
How often would an NTP call be needed? By the ATC server? By the servers which call the API?
Scalability
Being able to provide different URLs and auth tokens would allow the ATC to load balance with different API providers.
Threading of the ATC itself
Would the ATC need to spawn threads to be able to handle each new request?
How does a web server handle requests?
How would the various threads share a common schedule?
In a non-threaded environment, the ATC would possibly keep an associative array in memory to keep performance as high as possible. How would the various threads of the ATC have access to the same schedule?
So here is my question. Does this exist? If not, what are some best practices in trying to build the above?
It seems like a beanstalkd kind of network service except it only provides permission/scheduling and is extremely dependant on timing.
I am doing a project where I need to send device parameters to the server. I will be using Rasberry Pi for that and flask framework.
1. I want to know is there any limitation of HTTPS POST requests per second. Also, I will be using PythonAnywhere for server-side and their SQL database.
Initially, my objective was to send data over the HTTPS channel when the device is in sleep mode. But when the device (ex: car) wakes up I wanted to upgrade the HTTPS to WebSocket and transmit data in realtime. Later came to know PythonAnywhere doesn't support WebSocket.
Apart from answering the first question, can anyone put some light on the second part? I can just increase the number of HTTPS requests when the device is awake (ex: 1 per 60 min in sleep mode and 6 per 60sec when awake), but it will be unnecessary data consumption over the wake period for transmission of the overhead. It will be a consistent channel during the wake period.
PythonAnywhere developer here: from the server side, if you're running on our platform, there's no hard limit on the number of requests you can handle beyond the amount of time your Flask server takes to process each request. In a free account you would have one worker process handling all of the requests, each one in turn, so if it takes (say) 0.2 seconds to handle a request, your theoretical maximum throughput would be five requests a second. A paid "Hacker" plan would have two worker processes, and they would both be handling requests, to that would get you up to ten a second. And you could customize a paid plan and get more worker processes to increase that.
I don't know whether there would be any limits on the RPi side; perhaps someone else will be able to help with that.
I'm implementing a websocket-secure (wss://) service for an online game where all users will be connected to the service as long they are playing the game, this will use a high number of simultaneous connections, although the traffic won't be a big problem, as the service is used for chat, storage and notifications... not for real-time data synchronization.
I wanted to use Alchemy-Websockets, but it doesn't support TLS (wss://), so I have to look for another service like Fleck (or other).
Alchemy has been tested with high number of simultaneous connections, but I didn't find similar tests for Fleck, so I need to get some real info from users of fleck.
I know that Fleck is non-blocking and uses Async calls, but I need some real info, cuz it might be abusing threads, garbage collector, or any other aspect that won't be visible to lower number of connections.
I will use c# for the client as well, so I don't need neither hybiXX compatibility, nor fallback, I just need scalability and TLS support.
I finally added Mono support to WebSocketListener.
Check here how to run WebSocketListener in Mono.
10K connections is not little thing. WebSocketListener is asynchronous and it scales well. I have done tests with 10K connections and it should be fine.
My tests shows that WebSocketListener is almost as fast and scalable as the Microsoft one, and performs better than Fleck, Alchemy and others.
I made a test on a Windows machine with Core2Duo e8400 processor and 4 GB of ram.
The results were not encouraging as it started delaying handshakes after it reached ~1000 connections, i.e. it would take about one minute to accept a new connection.
These results were improved when i used XSockets as it reached 8000 simultaneous connections before the same thing happened.
I tried to test on a Linux VPS with Mono, but i don't have enough experience with Linux administration, and a few system settings related to TCP, etc. needed to change in order to allow high number of concurrent connections, so i could only reach ~1000 on the default settings, after that he app crashed (both Fleck test and XSocket test).
On the other hand, I tested node.js, and it seemed simpler to manage very high number of connections, as node didn't crash when reached the limits of tcp.
All the tests where echo test, the servers send the same message back to the client who sent the message and one random other connected client, and each connected client sends a random ~30 chars text message to the server on a random interval between 0 and 30 seconds.
I know my tests are not generic enough and i encourage anyone to have their own tests instead, but i just wanted to share my experience.
When we decided to try Fleck, we have implemented a wrapper for Fleck server and implemented a JavaScript client API so that we can send back acknowledgment messages back to the server. We wanted to test the performance of the server - message delivery time, percentage of lost messages etc. The results were pretty impressive for us and currently we are using Fleck in our production environment.
We have 4000 - 5000 concurrent connections during peak hours. On average 40 messages are sent per second. Acknowledged message ratio (acknowledged messages / total sent messages) never drops below 0.994. Average round-trip for messages is around 150 miliseconds (duration between server sending the message and receiving its ack). Finally, we did not have any memory related problems due to Fleck server after its heavy usage.