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 am developing a TCP server in Linux which initially can handle thousands of concurrent clients, which are intendeed to be long living. However, after starting to implement some functionallity, I made a thread pool for that calls which are blocking and should be done apart, like database or disk access.
After some tests, under high load requesting "many" asynchronous functions my server starts to lag due to many tasks being enqueued, as they arrive faster than they can be processed. These tasks are solved in the nanoseconds, but there are thounsands. I do understand this is totally normal.
I could of course grow behind a load balancer or buying better servers with more cores, however, in practice and as standard in the industry, how many concurrent long-lived TCP sessions are consideer a "good" number in such a server like this one I'm describing? How can I say that the number of concurrent connections I got is "good enough"?
Unfortunately there's no a magic number to answer your question but I have some considerations for you to find your number:
First of all, every operational system has its own max number of
simultaneous connections because the port numbers are finite. So
check if you're not trespassing this number, else every new
connection will be refused by your server.
In order to identify how many simultaneous connections are okay to you, you must to establish a max time of response for your service.
Keep in mind that even having simultaneous connections, multicore CPUs etc... the response will come out by the same network and get bottle necked. Thus I advice you to do a load and a stress test over your architecture in order to find your acceptable latency limit.
TL;DR: There's no a magic answer, you should do a load and a stress test to find it.
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.
I'm running into a lot of trouble when trying to seed a lot of torrents( > 10k) with libtorrent.
They include:
Choking my network connection
Tracker requests timing out(libtorrent tracker error)
When using auto-manage(they go from checking to seeding very slowly, even when my active_seeding is set to unlimited.
I used to let them be automanaged, but I'd find that it makes nearly all of them unavailable.
Here are my current settings:
sessionSettings.setActiveDownloads(5);
sessionSettings.setActiveLimit(-1);
sessionSettings.setActiveSeeds(-1);
sessionSettings.setActiveDHTLimit(5);
sessionSettings.setPeerConnectTimeout(25);
sessionSettings.announceDoubleNAT(true);
sessionSettings.setUploadRateLimit(0);
sessionSettings.setDownloadRateLimit(0);
sessionSettings.setHalgOpenLimit(5);
sessionSettings.useReadCache(false);
sessionSettings.setMaxPeerlistSize(500);
My current method is to loop over all my 10k+ torrents, and run torrent.resume(). When using automanage, this basically only starts ~ 50 of the torrents, and the others start about at a rate of 1 torrent per 10 minutes, which wouldn't work. When not using automanage, it chokes my connection.
BUT, when I do only 30 of them, they all seem to seed correctly, so my next plan is try to resume() them in groupings either with a time delay, or after they've received a tracker_reply.
I tried to garner what I could from this, but don't know what my settings should be specifically:
http://blog.libtorrent.org/2012/01/seeding-a-million-torrents/
I'd really appreciate someone sharing their settings for seeding thousands of torrents,
When not using automanage, it chokes my connection.
Since you say it can run either on a hosted server or domestic internet connection then you will have not much of a choice but to throttle torrent startups. Domestic internet connections are generally behind consumer grade routers and possibly CGNAT, both of which have fairly small NAT tables that will eventually choke from concurrently established TCP connections (peer-peer connections, tracker announces) or UDP pseudo-connections (UDP trackers, µTP, DHT)
So to run many torrents at once you will have to limit all active maintenance traffic of that kind so that the torrents are only started to listen passively for incoming connections.
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.