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.
Related
I have a Node.js (Express.js) server for my React.js website as BFF. I use Node.js for SSR, proxying some request and cache some pages in Redis. In last time I found that my server time to time went down. I suggest an uptime is about 2 days. After restart, all ok, then response time growth from hour to hour. I have resource monitoring at this server, and I see that server don't have problems with RAM or CPU. It used about 30% of RAM and 20% of CPU.
I regret to say it's a big production site and I can't make minimal reproducible example, cause i don't know where is reason of these error :(
Except are memory and CPU leaks, what will be reasons for Node.js server might go went down?
I need at least direction to search.
UPDATE1:
"went down" - its when kubernetes kills container due 3 failed life checks (GET request to a root / of website)
My site don't use any BD connection but call lots of 3rd party API's. About 6 API requests due one GET/ request from browser
UPDATE2:
Thx. To your answers, guys.
To understand what happend inside my GET/ request, i'm add open-telemetry into my server. In longtime and timeout GET/ requests i saw long API requests with very big tcp.connect and tls.connect.
I think it happens due lack of connections or something about that. I think Mostafa Nazari is right.
I create patch and apply them within the next couple of days, and then will say if problem gone
I solve problem.
It really was lack of connections. I add reusing node-fetch connection due keepAlive and a lot of cache for saving connections. And its works.
Thanks for all your answers. They all right, but most helpful thing was added open-telemetry to my server to understand what exactly happens inside request.
For other people with these problems, I'm strongly recommended as first step, add telemetry to your project.
https://opentelemetry.io/
PS: i can't mark two replies as answer. Joe have most detailed and Mostafa Nazari most relevant to my problem. They both may be "best answers".
Tnx for help, guys.
Gradual growth of response time suggest some kind of leak.
If CPU and memory consumption is excluded, another potentially limiting resources include:
File descriptors - when your server forgets to close files. Monitor for number of files in /proc//fd/* to confirm this. See what those files are, find which code misbehaves.
Directory listing - even temporary directory holding a lot of files will take some time to scan, and if your application is not removing some temporary files and lists them - you will be in trouble quickly.
Zombie processes - just monitor total number of processes on the server.
Firewall rules (some docker network magic may in theory cause this on host system) - monitor length of output of "iptables -L" or "iptables-save" or equivalent on modern kernels. Rare condition.
Memory fragmentation - this may happen in languages with garbage collection, but often leaves traces with something like "Can not allocate memory" in logs. Rare condition, hard to fix. Export some health metrics and make your k8s restart your pod preemptively.
Application bugs/implementation problems. This really depends on internal logic - what is going on inside the app. There may be some data structure that gets filled in with data as time goes by in some tricky way, becoming O(N) instead of O(1). Really hard to trace down, unless you have managed to reproduce the condition in lab/test environment.
API calls from frontend shift to shorter, but more CPU-hungry ones. Monitor distribution of API call types over time.
Here are some of the many possibilities of why your server may go down:
Memory leaks The server may eventually fail if a Node.js application is leaking memory, as you stated in your post above. This may occur if the application keeps adding new objects to the memory without appropriately cleaning up.
Unhandled exceptions The server may crash if an exception is thrown in the application code and is not caught. To avoid this from happening, ensure that all exceptions are handled properly.
Third-party libraries If the application uses any third-party libraries, the server may experience problems as a result. Before using them, consider examining their resource usage, versions, or updates.
Network Connection The server's network connection may have issues if the server is sending a lot of queries to third-party APIs or if the connection is unstable. Verify that the server is handling connections, timeouts, and retries appropriately.
Connection to the Database Even though your server doesn't use any BD connections, it's a good idea to look for any stale connections to databases that could be problematic.
High Volumes of Traffic The server may experience performance issues if it is receiving a lot of traffic. Make sure the server is set up appropriately to handle a lot of traffic, making use of load balancing, caching, and other speed enhancement methods. Cloudflare is always a good option ;)
Concurrent Requests Performance problems may arise if the server is managing a lot of concurrent requests. Check to see if the server is set up correctly to handle several requests at once, using tools like a connection pool, a thread pool, or other concurrency management strategies.
(Credit goes to my System Analysis and Design course slides)
With any incoming/outgoing web requests, 2 File Descriptors will be acquired. as there is a limit on number of FDs, OS does not let new Socket to be opened, this situation cause "Timeout Error" on clients. you can easily check number of open FDs by sudo ls -la /proc/_PID_/fd/ | tail -n +4 | wc -l where _PID_ is nodejs PID, if this value is rising, you have connection leak issue.
I guess you need to do the following to prevent Connection Leak:
make sure you are closing outgoing API call Http Connection (it depends on how you are opening them, some libraries manage this and you just need to config them)
cache your outgoing API call (if it is possible) to reduce API call
for your outgoing API call, use Connection pool, this would manage number of open HttpConnection, reuse already-opened connection and ...
review your code, so that you can serve a request faster than now (for example make your API call more parallel instead of await or nested call). anything you do to make your response faster, is good for preventing this situation
I solve problem. It really was lack of connections. I add reusing node-fetch connection due keepAlive and a lot of cache for saving connections. And its works.
Thanks for all your answers. They all right, but most helpful thing was added open-telemetry to my server to understand what exactly happens inside request.
For other people with these problems, I'm strongly recommended as first step, add telemetry to your project.
https://opentelemetry.io/
The getstream.io documentation says that one should expect retrieving a feed in approximately 60ms. When I retrieve my feeds they contain a field named 'duration' which I take is the calculated server side processing time. This value is steadily around 10-40ms, with an average around 15ms.
The problem is, I seldomly get my feeds in less than 150ms and the average time is rather around 200-250ms and sometimes up to 300-400ms. This is the time for the getting the feed alone, no enrichment etc., and I have verified with tcpdump that the network roundtrip is low (around 25ms), and that the time is actually spent waiting for the server to respond.
I've tried to move around my application (eu-west and eu-central) but that doesn't seem to affect things much (again, network roundtrip is steadily around 25ms).
My question is - should I really expect 60ms and continue investigating, or is 200-400ms normal? On the getstream.io site it is explained that developer accounts receive "Low Priority Processing" - what does this mean in practise? How much difference could I expect with another plan?
I'm using the node js low level API.
Stream APIs use SSL to encrypt traffic. Unfortunately SSL introduces additional network I/O. Usually you need to pay for the increased latency only once because Stream HTTP APIs supports HTTP persistent connection (aka keep-alive).
Here's a Wireshark screenshot of the TCP traffic of 2 sequential API requests with keep alive disabled client side:
The 4 lines in red highlight that the TCP connection is getting closed each time. Another interesting thing is that the handshaking takes almost 100ms and it's done twice (the first bunch of lines).
After some investigation, it turns out that the library used to make API requests to Stream's APIs (request) does not have keep-alive enabled by default. Such change will be part of the library soon and is available on a development branch.
Here's a screenshot of the same two requests with keep-alive enabled (using the code from that branch):
This time there is not connection reset anymore and the second HTTP request does not do SSL handshaking.
When we migrated our apps to azure from rackspace, we saw almost 50% of http requests getting read timeouts.
We tried placing the client both inside and outside azure with the same results. The client in this case is also a server btw, so no geographic/browser issues either.
We even tried increasing the size of the box to ensure azure wasn't throttling. But even using D boxes for a single request, the result was the same.
Once we moved out apps out of azure they started functioning properly again.
Each query was done directly on an instance using a public ip, so no load balancer issues either.
Almost 50% of queries ran into this issue. The timeout was set to 15 minutes.
Region was US East 2
Having 50% of HTTP requests timing out is not normal behavior. This is why you need to analyze what is causing those timeouts by validating the requests are hitting your VM. For this, I would recommend you running a packet capture on your server and analyze response times, as well as look for high number of retransmissions; it is even better if you can take a simultaneous network trace on your clients machines so you can do TCP sequence number analysis and compare packets sent vs received.
If you are seeing high latencies in the packet capture or high number of retransmissions, it requires detailed analysis. I strongly suggest you to open a support incident so Microsoft support can help you investigate your issue further.
I'm trying to get an HTTP server I'm writing on to behave well when under heavy load, but I'm getting some weird behavior that I cannot quite understand.
My testing consists of using ab (the Apache benchmark program) over the loopback interface at a concurrency level of 1000 (ab -n 50000 -c 1000 http://localhost:8080/apa), while straceing the server process. Strace both slows processing down well enough for the problem to be readily reproducible and allows me to debug the server internals post completion to some extent. I also capture the network traffic with tcpdump while the test is running.
What happens is that ab stops running a while into the test, complaining that a connection returned ECONNRESET, which I find a bit weird. I could easily buy into a connection timing out since the server might simply not have the bandwidth to process them all, but shouldn't that reasonably return ETIMEDOUT or even ECONNREFUSED if not all connections can be accepted?
I used Wireshark to extract the packets constituting the first connection to return ECONNRESET, and its brief packet list looks like this:
(The entire tcpdump file of this connection is available here.)
As you can see from this dump, the connection is accepted (after a few SYN retransmissions), and then the request is retransmitted a few times, and then the server resets the connection. I'm wondering, what could cause this to happen? Normally, Linux' TCP implementation ACKs data before the reading process even chooses to receive it so long as their is space in the TCP window, so why doesn't it do that here? Are there some kind of shared buffers that are running out? Most importantly, why is the kernel responding with a RST packet all of a sudden instead of simply waiting and letting the client re-transmit further?
For the record, the strace of the process indicates that it never even accepts a connection from the port in this connection (port 56946), so this seems to be something Linux does on its own. It is also worth noting that the server works perfectly well as long as ab's concurrency level is low enough (it works perfectly well up to about 100, and then starts failing intermittently somewhere between 100-500), and that its request throughput is rather constant regardless of the concurrency level (it processes somewhere between 6000-7000 requests per second as long as it isn't being straced). I have not found any particular correlation between the frequency of the problem occurring and my backlog setting to listen() (I'm currently using 128, but I've tried up to 1024 without it seeming to make a difference).
In case it matters, I'm running Linux 3.2.0 on this AMD64 box.
The backlog queue filled up: hence the SYN retransmissions.
Then a slot became available: hence the SYN/ACK.
Then the GET was sent, followed by four retransmissions, which I can't account for.
Then the server gave up and reset the connection.
I suspect you have a concurrency or throughput problem in your server which is preventing you from accepting connections rapidly enough. You should have a thread that is dedicated to doing nothing else but calling accept() and either starting another thread to handle the accepted socket or else queueing a job to handle it to a thread pool. I would then speculate that Linux resets connections on connections which are in the backlog queue and which are receiving I/O retries, but that's only a guess.
From what I understand about the HTTP protocol is that it is stateless. This means (to me) that is, it is only ever serving one connection at a time.
Even if there is 1,000,000 million users trying to access a site, it can only ever be serving one connection at a time.
So when I see a setting in IIS saying "Maximum number of concurrent users" (or similar) it makes me wonder, what does this mean?
In theory, it can be any number until the TCP connections run out.
In reality, it is limited by your hardware and your applications and what the application/users are doing. You need to do stress test for your server.
hope it help.