I've been trying to get OpenShift's HAProxy scaling working with ny NodeJS Express 4 app (it's essentially a REST API), but I haven't had much luck.
I'm using loader.io's stress testing tools, with a mere 100 users/minute (ramps up from 0), as I'm sure at least NodeJS/Express should be able to handle that. Now granted, this does generate roughly 10-20k requests in 60 seconds, but still.
What happens after the requests start pounding the server, is that I can see CPU go up, memory stays pretty solid and HAProxy's log file is letting me know that it's about to scale up.
It never does. HAProxy crashes before it can scale, then I lose the SSH connection to the OpenShift host. It comes back after a while, though.
At one point I did see that it was hitting the default 128 connection limit, then trying to spin up another gear, but since the requests kept coming in, I'm guessing it just couldn't handle it?
At first I thought that it was due to using a small gear, as I was running 'top' and saw that the CPU load spiked through the roof and I eventually disconnected.
I deleted the app and switched to small.highcpu gears (which cost money per hour).
Still crashes when it's supposed to scale up (with less than 100 concurrent users).
The small.highcpu gear does do something different though, because after it restarts, it adds a new gear, but it does NOT scale down (even though all traffic has stopped), so I have to manually scale down
If I leave the second gear up and try to stress test again with 100 users within 1 minute, HAProxy still goes down (memory usage and CPU seem to be OK) and I lose the SSH connection shortly afterwards. Also, this time it does NOT come up by itself. I also receive the following error in my NodeJS app:
{ [Error: socket hang up] code: 'ECONNRESET' }
{ [Error: socket hang up] code: 'ECONNRESET', sslError: undefined }
If I manually restart HAProxy after this (I kinda have to since it's not coming up), I can see that the local-gear is down, while the second gear is up, meaning that my NodeJS app crashed on the first gear, but stayed online on the second gear.
Is this really intended behaviour? Should I be doing something differently when dealing with NodeJS and HAProxy?
I really can't justify paying for a service such as this, if I can't even handle 100 users/minute, since I'm certain that I will eventually peak far beyond a 100.
UPDATE: Here's a loader.io graph/report, which kinda shows when HAProxy is giving up:
http://ldr.io/1tV2iwj
UPDATE 2: I tried using Blitz instead of loader.io, just to be certain on when HAProxy goes crazy. Blitz ended up with 12k hits, 26k errors and 4k timeouts.
Additionally, HAProxy went down and seemed like it would never come back up. This time I decided to wait, and after a few minutes, the local-gear DID come back up. It didn't bring up any additional gears, though.
Here's also what HAProxy was telling me when the Blitz test happened (before it crashed and I disconnected):
==> app-root/logs/haproxy_ctld.log <==
I, [2014-10-13T07:14:48.857616 #74934] INFO -- : add-gear - capacity: 143.75% gear_count: 1 sessions: 23 up_thresh: 90.0%
==> app-root/logs/haproxy.log <==
[WARNING] 285/071506 (74918) : Server express/local-gear is DOWN, reason: Layer7 timeout, check duration: 10002ms. 0 active and 0 backup servers left. 128 sessions active, 0 requeued, 0 remaining in queue.
[ALERT] 285/071506 (74918) : proxy 'express' has no server available!
[WARNING] 285/071511 (74918) : Server express/local-gear is DOWN for maintenance.
UPDATE 3: Tried again with Blitz, this time HAProxy/NodeJS didn't come back up, but instead got stuck on the following line (I can still SSH in):
DEBUG: Sending SIGTERM to child...
There's not much of a pattern here, except that HAProxy isn't doing what it's supposed to be doing: scaling.
I'm fairly confident that it's not my NodeJS app at fault here, as it's not reporting any errors (to the log file or to New Relic).
Your gear is running out of memory, and thus all of your processes are being killed. (that's why you are also getting kicked out of your ssh session.) When that happens, it could potentially put the haproxy configuration in a bad state, and if it does not automatically repair itself on a restart I would consider that to be a bug.
Related
We have a nodejs app that gets successfully deployed to a standard environment. Something happens after about two hours (or sooner depending on traffic): our downstream clients start receiving a bunch of 502 responses and then the service stabilizes. We think this has been happening for at least a few months.
When investigating the cause of the 502s, I see that:
There are no unhandled exception/promise rejection logs to indicate that the node app has crashed
I console.log when receiving SIGTERM and that, too, does not appear in the logs
The logs of the nginx sidecar include the following:
2020/06/16 23:11:11 [error] 35#35: *1149 recv() failed (104: Connection reset by peer) while reading response header from upstream, client: 169.254.1.1, server: _, request: "POST /api/redacted HTTP/1.1", upstream: "http://127.0.0.1:8081/api/redacted", host: "redacted.appspot.com""
I'm assuming that the 502s are coming from nginx because the upstream has disappeared. Are there other explanations I should explore?
If GAE is replacing my app containers intentionally, shouldn't that process prevent these types of 502s?
Should I expect something other than SIGTERM to be sent by the environment when the application/container is getting replaced?
Update #1 (2020-06-22)
I investigated and found evidence that we might be exceeding memory quota so I changed our instance_class from F1 to F2. As I write this our instances are sitting at ~200M of memory usage (F2s have 512M available). Additionally, I use the --max-old-space-size switch to set nodes memory usage to 496M.
The 502s are still happening.
I suspect that the 502s are happening as a result of the autoscaler terminating instances. Our app never receives SIGTERM (even during deployments). That means I can't close http keepalive connections gracefully and might explain why nginx raises Connection reset by peer.
Update #2 (2020-06-24)
Our service is just standard REST type stuff, no heavy loops.
I'll post another update with some memory graphs but I don't see any spikes. Perhaps a small memory leak.
Here's our app.yaml:
service: redacted
runtime: nodejs12
instance_class: F2
handlers:
- url: /.*
secure: always
redirect_http_response_code: 301
script: auto
We had a very similar problem with our Node.js app deployed on App Engine Flexible.
In our case, we ultimately determined that we had memory pressure that was causing the Node.js garbage collector to sometimes delay the processing of a request for hundreds of milliseconds (sometimes more). This caused our health check URLs to sporadically timeout, prompting GAE to remove the instance from the active pool.
Because we typically had just two instances handling the steady traffic, removing one instance quickly overloaded the remaining instance, and it would soon suffer the same fate.
We were surprised to find that it could take two minutes or longer before App Engine assigned traffic to a newly-created instance. Between the time our original instances were declared unhealthy, and when new instance(s) were online, 502s would be returned (presumably by GAE's nginx) to the client.
We were able to stabilize the environment simply by adding:
automatic_scaling:
min_num_instances: 4
To our app.yaml. Because two instances were generally sufficient for the traffic, ensuring we always had four running apparently kept our memory usage low enough to prevent the GC from stalling request handling, and even if it did, we had enough excess capacity to handle one instance being removed.
The scaling settings for GAE standard are slightly different.
In retrospect, we could see that our latency/response times would get a little "jittery" before the real problems started. Most responses had typical response times ~30ms, but increasingly we would see outlier requests in the x00ms range. You may want to check your request logs to see if you see something similar.
New Relic's Node.js VM data was helpful in detecting that garbage collection was taking an increasing amount of time.
Usually, 502 messages are errors on nginx side, as you have mentioned. The detailed logs related to this errors are not surfaced to Cloud Logging, yet.
According to your behavior, it seems a workload, so we can relate this case to an issue with running out of resources.
There are somethings that are well worth to take a look:
Check your metrics. The memory and CPU usage should be under healthy limits.
Check whether your scaling metrics are being enough to your workload.
Is there a chance to share these metrics near to the restart event?
Also, i t would be goo if you share your resources and scaling in the app.yaml.
I'm relatively new to running production node.js apps and I've recently been having problems with my server timing out.
Basically after a certain amount of usage & time my node.js app stops responding to requests. I don't even see routes being fired on my console anymore - it's like the whole thing just comes to a halt and the HTTP calls from my client (iPhone running AFNetworking) don't reach the server anymore. But if I restart my node.js app server everything starts working again, until things inevitable stop again. The app never crashes, it just stops responding to requests.
I'm not getting any errors, and I've made sure to handle and log all DB connection errors so I'm not sure where to start. I thought it might have something to do with memory leaks so I installed node-memwatch and set up a listener for memory leaks but that doesn't get called before my server stops responding to requests.
Any clue as to what might be happening and how I can solve this problem?
Here's my stack:
Node.js on AWS EC2 Micro Instance (using Express 4.0 + PM2)
Database on AWS RDS volume running MySQL (using node-mysql)
Sessions stored w/ Redis on same EC2 instance as the node.js app
Clients are iPhones accessing the server via AFNetworking
Once again no errors are firing with any of the modules mentioned above.
First of all you need to be a bit more specific about timeouts.
TCP timeouts: TCP divides a message into packets which are sent one by one. The receiver needs to acknowledge having received the packet. If the receiver does not acknowledge having received the package within certain period of time, a TCP retransmission occurs, which is sending the same packet again. If this happens a couple of more times, the sender gives up and kills the connection.
HTTP timeout: An HTTP client like a browser, or your server while acting as a client (e.g: sending requests to other HTTP servers), can set an arbitrary timeout. If a response is not received within that period of time, it will disconnect and call it a timeout.
Now, there are many, many possible causes for this... from more trivial to less trivial:
Wrong Content-Length calculation: If you send a request with a Content-Length: 20 header, that means "I am going to send you 20 bytes". If you send 19, the other end will wait for the remaining 1. If that takes too long... timeout.
Not enough infrastructure: Maybe you should assign more machines to your application. If (total load / # of CPU cores) is over 1, or your memory usage is high, your system may be over capacity. However keep reading...
Silent exception: An error was thrown but not logged anywhere. The request never finished processing, leading to the next item.
Resource leaks: Every request needs to be handled to completion. If you don't do this, the connection will remain open. In addition, the IncomingMesage object (aka: usually called req in express code) will remain referenced by other objects (e.g: express itself). Each one of those objects can use a lot of memory.
Node event loop starvation: I will get to that at the end.
For memory leaks, the symptoms would be:
the node process would be using an increasing amount of memory.
To make things worse, if available memory is low and your server is misconfigured to use swapping, Linux will start moving memory to disk (swapping), which is very I/O and CPU intensive. Servers should not have swapping enabled.
cat /proc/sys/vm/swappiness
will return you the level of swappiness configured in your system (goes from 0 to 100). You can modify it in a persistent way via /etc/sysctl.conf (requires restart) or in a volatile way using: sysctl vm.swappiness=10
Once you've established you have a memory leak, you need to get a core dump and download it for analysis. A way to do that can be found in this other Stackoverflow response: Tools to analyze core dump from Node.js
For connection leaks (you leaked a connection by not handling a request to completion), you would be having an increasing number of established connections to your server. You can check your established connections with netstat -a -p tcp | grep ESTABLISHED | wc -l can be used to count established connections.
Now, the event loop starvation is the worst problem. If you have short lived code node works very well. But if you do CPU intensive stuff and have a function that keeps the CPU busy for an excessive amount of time... like 50 ms (50 ms of solid, blocking, synchronous CPU time, not asynchronous code taking 50 ms), operations being handled by the event loop such as processing HTTP requests start falling behind and eventually timing out.
The way to find a CPU bottleneck is using a performance profiler. nodegrind/qcachegrind are my preferred profiling tools but others prefer flamegraphs and such. However it can be hard to run a profiler in production. Just take a development server and slam it with requests. aka: a load test. There are many tools for this.
Finally, another way to debug the problem is:
env NODE_DEBUG=tls,net node <...arguments for your app>
node has optional debug statements that are enabled through the NODE_DEBUG environment variable. Setting NODE_DEBUG to tls,net will make node emit debugging information for the tls and net modules... so basically everything being sent or received. If there's a timeout you will see where it's coming from.
Source: Experience of maintaining large deployments of node services for years.
In my company we experienced a serious problem today: our production server went down. Most people accessing our software via a browser were unable to get a connection, however people who had already been using the software were able to continue using it. Even our hot standby server was unable to communicate with the production server, which it does using HTTP, not even going out to the broader internet. The whole time the server was accessible via ping and ssh, and in fact was quite underloaded - it's normally running at 5% CPU load and it was even lower at this time. We do almost no disk i/o.
A few days after the problem started we have a new variation: port 443 (HTTPS) is responding but port 80 stopped responding. The server load is very low. Immediately after restarting tomcat, port 80 started responding again.
We're using tomcat7, with maxThreads="200", and using maxConnections=10000. We serve all data out of main memory, so each HTTP request completes very quickly, but we have a large number of users doing very simple interactions (this is high school subject selection). But it seems very unlikely we would have 10,000 users all with their browser open on our page at the same time.
My question has several parts:
Is it likely that the "maxConnections" parameter is the cause of our woes?
Is there any reason not to set "maxConnections" to a ridiculously high value e.g. 100,000? (i.e. what's the cost of doing so?)
Does tomcat output a warning message anywhere once it hits the "maxConnections" message? (We didn't notice anything).
Is it possible there's an OS limit we're hitting? We're using CentOS 6.4 (Linux) and "ulimit -f" says "unlimited". (Do firewalls understand the concept of Tcp/Ip connections? Could there be a limit elsewhere?)
What happens when tomcat hits the "maxConnections" limit? Does it try to close down some inactive connections? If not, why not? I don't like the idea that our server can be held to ransom by people having their browsers on it, sending the keep-alive's to keep the connection open.
But the main question is, "How do we fix our server?"
More info as requested by Stefan and Sharpy:
Our clients communicate directly with this server
TCP connections were in some cases immediately refused and in other cases timed out
The problem is evident even connecting my browser to the server within the network, or with the hot standby server - also in the same network - unable to do database replication messages which normally happens over HTTP
IPTables - yes, IPTables6 - I don't think so. Anyway, there's nothing between my browser and the server when I test after noticing the problem.
More info:
It really looked like we had solved the problem when we realised we were using the default Tomcat7 setting of BIO, which has one thread per connection, and we had maxThreads=200. In fact 'netstat -an' showed about 297 connections, which matches 200 + queue of 100. So we changed this to NIO and restarted tomcat. Unfortunately the same problem occurred the following day. It's possible we misconfigured the server.xml.
The server.xml and extract from catalina.out is available here:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/sxgd0fbzyvuldy7/AACZWoBKXNKfXjsSmkgkVgW_a?dl=0
More info:
I did a load test. I'm able to create 500 connections from my development laptop, and do an HTTP GET 3 times on each, without any problem. Unless my load test is invalid (the Java class is also in the above link).
It's hard to tell for sure without hands-on debugging but one of the first things I would check would be the file descriptor limit (that's ulimit -n). TCP connections consume file descriptors, and depending on which implementation is in use, nio connections that do polling using SelectableChannel may eat several file descriptors per open socket.
To check if this is the cause:
Find Tomcat PIDs using ps
Check the ulimit the process runs with: cat /proc/<PID>/limits | fgrep 'open files'
Check how many descriptors are actually in use: ls /proc/<PID>/fd | wc -l
If the number of used descriptors is significantly lower than the limit, something else is the cause of your problem. But if it is equal or very close to the limit, it's this limit which is causing issues. In this case you should increase the limit in /etc/security/limits.conf for the user with whose account Tomcat is running and restart the process from a newly opened shell, check using /proc/<PID>/limits if the new limit is actually used, and see if Tomcat's behavior is improved.
While I don't have a direct answer to solve your problem, I'd like to offer my methods to find what's wrong.
Intuitively there are 3 assumptions:
If your clients hold their connections and never release, it is quite possible your server hits the max connection limit even there is no communications.
The non-responding state can also be reached via various ways such as bugs in the server-side code.
The hardware conditions should not be ignored.
To locate the cause of this problem, you'd better try to replay the scenario in a testing environment. Perform more comprehensive tests and record more detailed logs, including but not limited:
Unit tests, esp. logic blocks using transactions, threading and synchronizations.
Stress-oriented tests. Try to simulate all the user behaviors you can come up with and their combinations and test them in a massive batch mode. (ref)
More specified Logging. Trace client behaviors and analysis what happened exactly before the server stopped responding.
Replace a server machine and see if it will still happen.
The short answer:
Use the NIO connector instead of the default BIO connector
Set "maxConnections" to something suitable e.g. 10,000
Encourage users to use HTTPS so that intermediate proxy servers can't turn 100 page requests into 100 tcp connections.
Check for threads hanging due to deadlock problems, e.g. with a stack dump (kill -3)
(If applicable and if you're not already doing this, write your client app to use the one connection for multiple page requests).
The long answer:
We were using the BIO connector instead of NIO connector. The difference between the two is that BIO is "one thread per connection" and NIO is "one thread can service many connections". So increasing "maxConnections" was irrelevant if we didn't also increase "maxThreads", which we didn't, because we didn't understand the BIO/NIO difference.
To change it to NIO, put this in the element in server.xml:
protocol="org.apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol"
From what I've read, there's no benefit to using BIO so I don't know why it's the default. We were only using it because it was the default and we assumed the default settings were reasonable and we didn't want to become experts in tomcat tuning to the extent that we now have.
HOWEVER: Even after making this change, we had a similar occurrence: on the same day, HTTPS became unresponsive even while HTTP was working, and then a little later the opposite occurred. Which was a bit depressing. We checked in 'catalina.out' that in fact the NIO connector was being used, and it was. So we began a long period of analysing 'netstat' and wireshark. We noticed some periods of high spikes in the number of connections - in one case up to 900 connections when the baseline was around 70. These spikes occurred when we synchronised our databases between the main production server and the "appliances" we install at each customer site (schools). The more we did the synchronisation, the more we caused outages, which caused us to do even more synchronisations in a downward spiral.
What seems to be happening is that the NSW Education Department proxy server splits our database synchronisation traffic into multiple connections so that 1000 page requests become 1000 connections, and furthermore they are not closed properly until the TCP 4 minute timeout. The proxy server was only able to do this because we were using HTTP. The reason they do this is presumably load balancing - they thought by splitting the page requests across their 4 servers, they'd get better load balancing. When we switched to HTTPS, they are unable to do this and are forced to use just one connection. So that particular problem is eliminated - we no longer see a burst in the number of connections.
People have suggested increasing "maxThreads". In fact this would have improved things but this is not the 'proper' solution - we had the default of 200, but at any given time, hardly any of these were doing anything, in fact hardly any of these were even allocated to page requests.
I think you need to debug the application using Apache JMeter for number of connection and use Jconsole or Zabbix to look for heap space or thread dump for tomcat server.
Nio Connector of Apache tomcat can have maximum connections of 10000 but I don't think thats a good idea to provide that much connection to one instance of tomcat better way to do this is to run multiple instance of tomcat.
In my view best way for Production server: To Run Apache http server in front and point your tomcat instance to that http server using AJP connector.
Hope this helps.
Are you absolutely sure you're not hitting the maxThreads limit? Have you tried changing it?
These days browsers limit simultaneous connections to a max of 4 per hostname/ip, so if you have 50 simultaneous browsers, you could easily hit that limit. Although hopefully your webapp responds quickly enough to handle this. Long polling has become popular these days (until websockets are more prevalent), so you may have 200 long polls.
Another cause could be if you use HTTP[S] for app-to-app communication (that is, no browser involved). Sometimes app writers are sloppy and create new connections for performing multiple tasks in parallel, causing TCP and HTTP overhead. Double check that you are not getting an inflood of requests. Log files can usually help you on this, or you can use wireshark to count the number of HTTP requests or HTTP[S] connections. If possible, modify your API to handle multiple API calls in one HTTP request.
Related to the last one, if you have many HTTP/1.1 requests going across one connection, and intermediate proxy may be splitting them into multiple connections for load balancing purposes. Sounds crazy I know, but I've seen it happen.
Lastly, some crawl bots ignore the crawl delay set in robots.txt. Again, log files and/or wireshark can help you determine this.
Overall, run more experiments with more changes. maxThreads, https, etc. before jumping to conclusions with maxConnections.
I am writing a socket.io based server and I'm trying to avoid the pyramid of doom and to keep the memory low.
I wrote this client - http://jsfiddle.net/QUDXU/1/ which i run with node client-cluster 1000. So 1000 connections that are making continuous requests.
For the server side a tried 3 different solutions which i tested. The results in terms of RAM used by the server, after i let everything run for an hour are:
Simple callbacks - http://jsfiddle.net/DcWmJ/ - 112MB
Q module - http://jsfiddle.net/hhsja/1/ - 850MB and increasing
Async module - http://jsfiddle.net/SgemT/ - 1.2GB and increasing
The server and clients are on different machines. (Softlayer cloud instances). Node 0.10.12 and Socket.io 0.9.16
Why is this happening? How can I keep the memory low and use some kind of library which allows to keep the code readable?
Option 1. You can use the cluster module and gracefully kill your workers from time to time (make sure you disconnect() first). You can check process.memoryUsage().rss > 130000000 in the master and kill the workers when they exceed 130MB, for example :)
Option 2. NodeJS has the habit of using memory and rarely doing rigorous cleanups. As V8 reaches the maximum memory limit, GC calls are more aggressive. So you could lower the maximum memory a node process can take up by running node --max-stack-size <amount>. I do this when running node on embedded devices (often with less than 64 MB of ram available).
Option 3. If you really want to keep the memory low, use weak references where it is possible (anywhere except in long-running calls) https://github.com/TooTallNate/node-weak . This way, the objects will get garbage collected sooner. Extensive tests to make sure everything works are needed, though. GL if u use this one :) https://github.com/TooTallNate/node-weak
It seems like the problem was on the client script, not on the server one. I ran 1000 processes, each of them emitting messages to the server at every second. I think the server was getting very busy resolving all of those requests and thus using all of that memory. I rewrote the client side like this, spawning a number of processes proportional to the number of processors, each of them connecting multiple times like this:
client = io.connect(selectedEnvironment, { 'force new connection': true, 'reconnect': false });
Notice the 'force new connection' flag that allows to connect multiple clients using the same instance of socket.io-client.
The part that solved my problem was actually how the requests were made: any client would make another request after a second from receiving the acknowledge of the previous request, not at every second.
Connecting 1000 clients is making my server using ~100MB RSS. I also used async on the server script which seems very elegant and easier to understand than Q.
The bad part is that I've been running the server for about 2-3 days and the memory rised at 250MB RSS. This, I don't know why.
So, I need to run my node.js app on heroku, it works very well, but when my app crashes, i need something to restart it, so i added forever to package.json, and created a file named forever.js with this:
var forever = require('forever');
var child = new (forever.Monitor)('web.js', {
max: 3,
silent: false,
options: []
});
//child.on('exit', this.callback);
child.start();
forever.startServer(child);
on my Procfile (that heroku uses to know what to start) i put:
web: node forever.js
alright! Now everytime my app crashes it auto restarts, but, from time to time (almost every 1 hour), heroku starts throwing H99 - Platform error, and about this error, they say:
Unlike all of the other errors which will require action from you to correct, this one does not require action from you. Try again in a minute, or check the status site.
But I just manually restart my app and the error goes away, if I don't do that, it may take hours to go away by itself.
Can anyone help me here? Maybe this is a forever problem? A heroku issue?
This is an issue with free Heroku accounts: Heroku automatically kills unpaid apps after 1 hour of inactivity, and then spins them back up the next time a request comes in. (As mentioned below, this does not apply to paid accounts. If you scale up to two servers and pay for the second one, you get two always-on servers.) - https://devcenter.heroku.com/articles/dynos#dyno-sleeping
This behavior is probably not playing nicely with forever. To confirm this, run heroku logs and look for the lines "Idling" and " Stopping process with SIGTERM" and then see what comes next.
Instead of using forever, you might want to try the using the Cluster API and automatically create a new child each time one dies. http://nodejs.org/api/cluster.html#cluster_cluster is a good example, you'd just put your code into the else block.
The upshot is that your app is now much more stable, plus it gets to use all of the available CPU cores (4 in my experience).
The downside is that you cannot store any state in memory. If you need to store sessions or something along those lines, try out the free Redis To Go addon (heroku addons:add redistogo).
Here's an example that's currently running on heroku using cluster and Redis To Go: https://github.com/nfriedly/node-unblocker
UPDATE: Heroku has recently made some major changes to how free apps work, and the big one is they can only be online for a maximum of 18 hours per day, making it effectively unusable as a "real" web server. Details at https://blog.heroku.com/archives/2015/5/7/heroku-free-dynos
UPDATE 2: They changed it again. Now, if you verify your ID, you can run 1 free dyno constantly: https://blog.heroku.com/announcing_heroku_free_ssl_beta_and_flexible_dyno_hours#flexible-free-dyno-hours