Question
When sending a large http request (e.g. 100MB) to Spring Cloud Gateway, does it read the complete request into memory before forwarding it to the downstream service?
Assumption/Guess
From the memory consumption and timing, it seems to work this way but I cannot find any information about this in the documentation. Can anyone confirm if the assumption is correct or not?
Are there workarounds/solutions?
If the assumption is correct: Is it possible to make the Spring Cloud Gateway "stream" the request immediately after the route has been determined (e.g. after reading the headers)? Because reading the complete request into memory can quickly turn into a bottleneck when multiple "big" requests are coming in at the same time. Or are there some other recommended workarounds for this issue?
Thanks for the fast response and hint spencergibb!
Actually in our case it was the RetryFilter which was causing the effect that we were observing. After deactivation the streaming is working fine and the memory constraint is even mentioned in the documentation of the RetryFilter.
According to documentation I expected that the filter would only be applied to GET requests on default. But maybe this was a misunderstanding. Removing the filter definitely solved the memory issues for us.
While designing rest API's I time to time have challenge to deal with batch operations (e.g. delete or update many entities at once) to reduce overhead of many tcp client connections. And in particular situation problem usually solves by adding custom api method for specific operation (e.g. POST /files/batchDelete which accepts ids at request body) which doesn't look pretty from point of view of rest api design principles but do the job.
But for me general solution for the problem still desirable. Recently I found Google Cloud Storage JSON API batching documentation which for me looks like pretty general solution. I mean similar format may be used for any http api, not just google cloud storage. So my question is - does anybody know kind of general standard (standard or it's draft, guideline, community effort or so) of making multiple API calls combined into one HTTP request?
I'm aware of capabilities of http/2 which include usage of single tcp connection for http requests but my question is addressed to application level. Which in my opinion still make sense because despite of ability to use http/2 taking that on application level seems like the only way to guarantee that for any client including http/1 which is currently the most used version of http.
TL;DR
REST nor HTTP are ideal for batch operations.
Usually caching, which is one of RESTs constraints, which is not optional but mandatory, prevents batch processing in some form.
It might be beneficial to not expose the data to update or remove in batch as own resources but as data elements within a single resource, like a data table in a HTML page. Here updating or removing all or parts of the entries should be straight forward.
If the system in general is write-intensive it is probably better to think of other solutions such as exposing the DB directly to those clients to spare a further level of indirection and complexity.
Utilization of caching may prevent a lot of workload on the server and even spare unnecessary connecctions
To start with, REST nor HTTP are ideal for batch operations. As Jim Webber pointed out the application domain of HTTP is the transfer of documents over the Web. This is what HTTP does and this is what it is good at. However, any business rules we conclude are just a side effect of the document management and we have to come up with solutions to turn this document management side effects to something useful.
As REST is just a generalization of the concepts used in the browsable Web, it is no miracle that the same concepts that apply to Web development also apply to REST development in some form. Thereby a question like how something should be done in REST usually resolves around answering how something should be done on the Web.
As mentioned before, HTTP isn't ideal in terms of batch processing actions. Sure, a GET request may retrieve multiple results, though in reality you obtain one response containing links to further resources. The creation of resources has, according to the HTTP specification, to be indicated with a Location header that points to the newly created resource. POST is defined as an all purpose method that allows to perform tasks according to server-specific semantics. So you could basically use it to create multiple resources at once. However, the HTTP spec clearly lacks support for indicating the creation of multiple resources at once as the Location header may only appear once per response as well as define only one URI in it. So how can a server indicate the creation of multiple resources to the server?
A further indication that HTTP isn't ideal for batch processing is that a URI must reference a single resource. That resource may change over time, though the URI can't ever point to multiple resources at once. The URI itself is, more or less, used as key by caches which store a cacheable response representation for that URI. As a URI may only ever reference one single resource, a cache will also only ever store the representation of one resource for that URI. A cache will invalidate a stored representation for a URI if an unsafe operation is performed on that URI. In case of a DELETE operation, which is by nature unsafe, the representation for the URI the DELETE is performed on will be removed. If you now "redirect" the DELETE operation to remove multiple backing resources at once, how should a cache take notice of that? It only operates on the URI invoked. Hence even when you delete multiple resources in one go via DELETE a cache might still serve clients with outdated information as it simply didn't take notice of the removal yet and its freshness value would still indicate a fresh-enough state. Unless you disable caching by default, which somehow violates one of REST's constraints, or reduce the time period a representation is considered fresh enough to a very low value, clients will probably get served with outdated information. You could of course perform an unsafe operation on each of these URIs then to "clear" the cache, though in that case you could have invoked the DELETE operation on each resource you wanted to batch delete itself to start with.
It gets a bit easier though if the batch of data you want to remove is not explicitly captured via their own resources but as data of a single resource. Think of a data-table on a Web page where you have certain form-elements, such as a checkbox you can click on to mark an entry as delete candidate and then after invoking the submit button send the respective selected elements to the server which performs the removal of these items. Here only the state of one resource is updated and thus a simple POST, PUT or even PATCH operation can be performed on that resource URI. This also goes well with caching as outlined before as only one resource has to be altered, which through the usage of unsafe operations on that URI will automatically lead to an invalidation of any stored representation for the given URI.
The above mentioned usage of form-elements to mark certain elements for removal depends however on the media-type issued. In the case of HTML its forms section specifies the available components and their affordances. An affordance is the knowledge what you can and should do with certain objects. I.e. a button or link may want to be pushed, a text field may expect numeric or alphanumeric input which further may be length limited and so on. Other media types, such as hal-forms, halform or ion, attempt to provide form representations and components for a JSON based notation, however, support for such media-types is still quite limited.
As one of your concerns are the number of client connections to your service, I assume you have a write-intensive scenario as in read-intensive cases caching would probably take away a good chunk of load from your server. I.e. BBC once reported that they could reduce the load on their servers drastically just by introducing a one minute caching interval for recently requested resources. This mainly affected their start page and the linked articles as people clicked on the latest news more often than on old news. On receiving a couple of thousands, if not hundred thousands, request per minute they could, as mentioned before, reduce the number of requests actually reaching the server significantly and therefore take away a huge load on their servers.
Write intensive use-cases however can't take benefit of caching as much as read-intensive cases as the cache would get invalidated quite often and the actual request being forward to the server for processing. If the API is more or less used to perform CRUD operations, as so many "REST" APIs do in reality, it is questionable if it wouldn't be preferable to expose the database directly to the clients. Almost all modern database vendors ship with sophisticated user-right management options and allow to create views that can be exposed to certain users. The "REST API" on top of it basically just adds a further level of indirection and complexity in such a case. By exposing the DB directly, performing batch updates or deletions shouldn't be an issue at all as through the respective query languages support for such operations should already be build into the DB layer.
In regards to the number of connections clients create: HTTP from 1.0 on allows the reusage of connections via the Connection: keep-alive header directive. In HTTP/1.1 persistent connections are used by default if not explicitly requested to close via the respective Connection: close header directive. HTTP/2 introduced full-duplex connections that allow many channels and therefore requests to reuse the same connections at the same time. This is more or less a fix for the connection limitation suggested in RFC 2626 which plenty of Web developers avoided by using CDN and similar stuff. Currently most implementations use a maximum limit of 100 channels and therefore simultaneous downloads via a single connections AFAIK.
Usually opening and closing a connection takes a bit of time and server resources and the more open connections a server has to deal with the more a system may suffer. Though open connections with hardly any traffic aren't a big issue for most servers. While the connection creation was usually considered to be the costly part, through the usage of persistent connections that factor moved now towards the number of requests issued, hence the request for sending out batch-requests, which HTTP is not really made for. Again, as mentioned throughout the post, through the smart utilization of caching plenty of requests may never reach the server at all, if possible. This is probably one of the best optimization strategies to reduce the number of simultaneous requests, as probably plenty of requests might never reach the server at all. Probably the best advice to give is in such a case to have a look at what kind of resources are requested frequently, which requests take up a lot of processing capacity and which ones can easily get responded with by utilizing caching options.
reduce overhead of many tcp client connections
If this is the crux of the issue, the easiest way to solve this is to switch to HTTP/2
In a way, HTTP/2 does exactly what you want. You open 1 connection, and using that collection you can send many HTTP requests in parallel. Unlike batching in a single HTTP request, it's mostly transparent for clients and response and requests can be processed out of order.
Ultimately batching multiple operations in a single HTTP request is always a network hack.
HTTP/2 is widely available. If HTTP/1.1 is still the most used version (this might be true, but gap is closing), this has more to do with servers not yet being set up for it, not clients.
Should we use http caching only for static stuff?
Or also in API responses could be using caching headers if data from API is not static? it can be changed by application's users.
Caching is needed to gain performance but at the same time it increases the likelihood of the data being outdated. It's true for static resources as well. So if your app is under high load and you want to increase the speed - you may sacrifice up-to-date data for gain in performance.
Note, though, that client side needs to respect caching headers. We often work with browsers - they have it all figured out, but if our client is another service, then you need to ensure that it doesn't ignore the headers. This won't be for free - code will need to be written for this to happen.
Your cache may also be public or private. If it's public (any client is allowed to see the content), you may configure a reverse proxy (like nginx) between your server and the clients. Nginx can be set up to cache results (it also understands cache headers). So it may take off some load from your application by not letting requests through and instead returning cached copies.
In hadoop, Is there any limit to the size of data that can be accessed/Ingested to HDFS through knox + webhdfs?
Apache Knox is your best option when you need to access webhdfs resources from outside of a cluster that is protected with firewall/s. If you don't have access to all of the datanode ports then direct access to webhdfs will not work for you. Opening firewall holes for all of those host:ports defeats the purpose of the firewall, introduces a management nightmare and leaks network details to external clients needlessly.
As Hellmar indicated, it depends on your specific usecase/s and clients. If you need to do ingestion of huge files or numbers of files then you may want to consider a different approach to accessing the cluster internals for those clients. If you merely need access to files of any size then you should be able to extend that access to many clients.
Not having to authenticate using kerberos/SPNEGO to access such resources opens up many possible clients that would otherwise be unusable with secure clusters.
The Knox users guide has examples for accessing webhdfs resources - you can find them: http://knox.apache.org/books/knox-0-7-0/user-guide.html#WebHDFS - this also illustrates the groovy based scripting available from Knox. This allows you to do some really interesting things.
In theory, there is no limit. However, using Knox creates a bottleneck. Pure WebHDFS would redirect the read/write request for each block to a
(possibly) different datanode, parallelizing access; but with Knox everything is routed through a single gateway and serialized.
That being said, you would probably not want to upload a huge file using Knox and WebHDFS. It will simply take too long (and depending on your client, you may get a timeout.)
So far all the guides I've found for creating rest API's are for displaying stuff from your own site, but can you display stuff from another site?
Typically you'd do this by:
Proxying calls: When a request comes into your server, make a request to the remote server and pass it back to the user. You'll want to make sure you can make the requests quickly and cache results aggressively. You'll probably want to use a short timeout for the remote call and rate-limit API requests so your server can't be blocked making all these remote calls.
Pre-fetching: Downloading with a data dump periodically or pre-fetching the data you need so you can store it locally.
Keep in mind:
Are you allowed to use the API this way, according to its terms of use? If it's a website you're scraping, it may be okay for small hobby use, but not for a large commercial operation.
The remote source probably has its own rate limits in place. Can you realistically provide your service under those limits?
As mentioned, cache aggressively to avoid re-requesting the same data. Get to know HTTP caching standards (cache-control, etag, etc headers) to minimise network activity.
If you are proxying, consider choosing a data center near the API's data center to reduce latency.