I understand the main principles behind both. I have however a thought which I can't answer.
Benchmarks show that WebSockets can serve more messages as this website shows: http://blog.arungupta.me/rest-vs-websocket-comparison-benchmarks/
This makes sense as it states the connections do not have to be closed and reopened, also the http headers etc.
My question is, what if the connections are always from different clients all the time (and perhaps maybe some from the same client). The benchmark suggests it's the same clients connecting from what I understand, which would make sense keeping a constant connection.
If a user only does a request every minute or so, would it not be beneficial for the communication to run over REST instead of WebSockets as the server frees up sockets and can handle a larger crowd as to speak?
To fix the issue of REST you would go by vertical scaling, and WebSockets would be horizontal?
Doe this make sense or am I out of it?
This is my experience so far, I am happy to discuss my conclusions about using WebSockets in big applications approached with CQRS:
Real Time Apps
Are you creating a financial application, game, chat or whatever kind of application that needs low latency, frequent, bidirectional communication? Go with WebSockets:
Well supported.
Standard.
You can use either publisher/subscriber model or request/response model (by creating a correlationId with each request and subscribing once to it).
Small size apps
Do you need push communication and/or pub/sub in your client and your application is not too big? Go with WebSockets. Probably there is no point in complicating things further.
Regular Apps with some degree of high load expected
If you do not need to send commands very fast, and you expect to do far more reads than writes, you should expose a REST API to perform CRUD (create, read, update, delete), specially C_UD.
Not all devices prefer WebSockets. For example, mobile devices may prefer to use REST, since maintaining a WebSocket connection may prevent the device from saving battery.
You expect an outcome, even if it is a time out. Even when you can do request/response in WebSockets using a correlationId, still the response is not guaranteed. When you send a command to the system, you need to know if the system has accepted it. Yes you can implement your own logic and achieve the same effect, but what I mean, is that an HTTP request has the semantics you need to send a command.
Does your application send commands very often? You should strive for chunky communication rather than chatty, so you should probably batch those change request.
You should then expose a WebSocket endpoint to subscribe to specific topics, and to perform low latency query-response, like filling autocomplete boxes, checking for unique items (eg: usernames) or any kind of search in your read model. Also to get notification on when a change request (write) was actually processed and completed.
What I am doing in a pet project, is to place the WebSocket endpoint in the read model, then on connection the server gives a connectionID to the client via WebSocket. When the client performs an operation via REST, includes an optional parameter that indicates "when done, notify me through this connectionID". The REST server returns saying if the command was sent correctly to a service bus. A queue consumer processes the command, and when done (well or wrong), if the command had notification request, another message is placed in a "web notification queue" indicating the outcome of the command and the connectionID to be notified. The read model is subscribed to this queue, gets messessages and forward them to the appropriate WebSocket connection.
However, if your REST API is going to be consumed by non-browser clients, you may want to offer a way to check of the completion of a command using the async REST approach: https://www.adayinthelifeof.nl/2011/06/02/asynchronous-operations-in-rest/
I know, that is quite appealing to have an low latency UP channel available to send commands, but if you do, your overall architecture gets messed up. For example, if you are using a CQRS architecture, where is your WebSocket endpoint? in the read model or in the write model?
If you place it on the read model, then you can easy access to your read DB to answer fast search queries, but then you have to couple somehow the logic to process commands, being the read model the responsible of send the commands to the write model and notify if it is unable to do so.
If you place it on the write model, then you have it easy to place commands, but then you need access to your read model and read DB if you want to answer search queries through the WebSocket.
By considering WebSockets part of your read model and leaving command processing to the REST interface, you keep your loose coupling between your read model and your write model.
Related
Creating a user, adding some record to collection in the DB, updating some stuff, etc..
All of these we regularly do with HTTP requests against REST api.
Think about making Event bus as server instead of REST api.
In that method, create user will be an event name: "CreateUser" instead of REST api endpoint: POST /users.
In reflect to any action done in the event bus, it will re-emit a following event telling to any body needed to know about, that the event was done.
If for example someone viewing the vehicles collection and another user just edit one of the columns or add a new vehicle instance, it will be reflected immediately to who views it online.
My question is if there attitudes like I mentioned above, if there some formally names for it, if it a good practice, if you know someone who regularly uses it, a framework or something etc. Does the socket.io server can handle and behave like http server in high workloads?
You can use websockets for this; they provide a bidirectional channel between client and server to send messages across. You will have to catch and parse the messages on each end yourself, as there is no additional protocol on top of them.
They don't hold state, so there is no knowledge of who is looking at what, or who got what. You could send the same update message to all connected clients and leave it to the client to use it or not.
You would have to reprogram your client code and the API endpoints, because it's a different way of doing things, and it can also do server push.
I have no idea about frameworks though, as I always use them without one. Websockets are fast, but server behaviour at high workloads depends on implementation, and I only have experience with the websocket server I wrote myself. I suppose the performance of the socket.io can easily be googled.
Background
We are writing a Messenger-like app. We have setup Websockets to Inbox and Chat.
Question
My question is simple. What are the advantages and disadvantages when sending data from Client to Server using REST instead of Websockets? (I am not interested in updates now.)
We know that REST has higher overhead in terms of message sizes and that WS is duplex (thus open all time). What about the other things we didn't keep in mind?
Here's a summary of the tradeoffs I'm aware of.
Reasons to use webSocket:
You need/want server-push of data.
You are sending lots of small pieces of data from client to server and doing it very regularly. Using webSocket has significantly less overhead per transmission.
Reasons to use REST:
You want to use server-side frameworks or modules that are built for REST, not for webSocket (such as auth, rate limiting, security, streaming, etc...).
You aren't sending data very often from client to server and thus the server-side burden of keeping a webSocket connection open all the time may lessen your server scalability.
You want your client to run in places where a long-connected webSocket during inactive periods of time may not be practical (perhaps mobile).
You want your client to run in old browsers that don't support webSocket.
You want the browser to enforce same-origin restrictions (those are enforced for REST Ajax calls, but not for webSocket connections).
You don't want to have to write code that detects when the webSocket connection has died and then auto-reconnects and handles back-offs and handles mobile issues with battery usage issues, etc...
You need to run in situations where there are proxies or other network infrastructure that may not support long running webSocket connections.
If you want request/response built in. REST is request/response. WebSocket is not - it's message based. Responses from a webSocket are done by sending a messge back. That message back is not, by itself, a response to any specific request, it's just data being sent back. If you want request/response with webSocket, then you have to build some infrastructure yourself where you tag an id into a request and the response for that particular request contains that specific id. Otherwise, if there are every multiple requests in flight at the same time, then you don't know which response belongs with which request because all the data is being sent over the same connection and you would have no way of matching response with request.
If you want other clients to be able to carry out this operation via an Ajax call.
So, if you already have a webSocket implementation, don't have any problem with it that are lessened with REST and aren't interested in any of the reasons that REST might be better, then stick with your webSocket implementation.
Related references:
websocket vs rest API for real time data?
Ajax vs Socket.io
Adding comments per your request:
It sounds like you're expecting someone to tell you the "right" way to do it. There are reasons to pick one way over the other. If none of those reason compel you one way vs. the other, then it's just an architectural choice and you must take in the whole context of what you are doing and decide which architectural choice makes more sense to you. If you already have the reliably established webSocket connection and none of the advantages of REST apply to your situation then you can optimize for "efficiency" and send your data to the server over the webSocket connection.
On the other hand, if you wanted there to be a simple API on your server that could be reached with an Ajax call from other clients, then you'd want your server to support this operation via REST so it would simplest for these other clients to carry out this one operation. So, it all depends upon which direction your requirements drive you and, if there is no particular driving reason to go one way or the other, you just make an architectural choice yourself.
I need to build a TCP server using C# .NET 4.5+, it must be capable of comfortably handling at least 3,000 connected clients that will be send messages every 10 seconds and with a message size from 250 to 500 bytes.
The data will be offloaded to another process or queue for batch processing and logging.
I also need to be able to select an existing client to send and receive messages (greater then 500 bytes) messages within a windows forms application.
I have not built an application like this before so my knowledge is based on the various questions, examples and documentation that I have found online.
My conclusion is:
non-blocking async is the way to go. Stay away from creating multiple threads and blocking IO.
SocketAsyncEventArgs - Is complex and really only needed for very large systems, BTW what constitutes a very large system? :-)
BeginXXX methods will suffice (EAP).
Using TAP I can simplify 3. by using Task.Factory.FromAsync, but it only produces the same outcome.
Use a global collection to keep track of the connected tcp clients
What I am unsure about:
Should I use a ManualResetEvent when interacting with the TCP Client collection? I presume the asyc events will need to lock access to this collection.
Best way to detect a disconnected client after I have called BeginReceive. I've found the call is stuck waiting for a response so this needs to be cleaned up.
Sending messages to a specific TCP Client. I'm thinking function in custom TCP session class to send a message. Again in an async model, would I need to create a timer based process that inspects a message queue or would I create an event on a TCP Session class that has access to the TcpClient and associated stream? Really interested in opinions here.
I'd like to use a thread for the entire service and use non-blocking principals within, are there anythings I should be mindful of espcially in context of 1. ManualResetEvent etc..
Thank you for reading. I am keen to hear constructive thoughts and or links to best practices/examples. It's been a while since I've coded in c# so apologies if some of my questions are obvious. Tasks, async/await are new to me! :-)
I need to build a TCP server using C# .NET 4.5+
Well, the first thing to determine is whether it has to be base-bones TCP/IP. If you possibly can, write one that uses a higher-level abstraction, like SignalR or WebAPI. If you can write one using WebSockets (SignalR), then do that and never look back.
Your conclusions sound pretty good. Just a few notes:
SocketAsyncEventArgs - Is complex and really only needed for very large systems, BTW what constitutes a very large system? :-)
It's not so much a "large" system in the terms of number of connections. It's more a question of how much traffic is in the system - the number of reads/writes per second.
The only thing that SocketAsyncEventArgs does is make your I/O structures reusable. The Begin*/End* (APM) APIs will create a new IAsyncResult for each I/O operation, and this can cause pressure on the garbage collector. SocketAsyncEventArgs is essentially the same as IAsyncResult, only it's reusable. Note that there are some examples on the 'net that use the SocketAsyncEventArgs APIs without reusing the SocketAsyncEventArgs structures, which is completely ridiculous.
And there's no guidelines here: heavier hardware will be able to use the APM APIs for much more traffic. As a general rule, you should build a barebones APM server and load test it first, and only move to SAEA if it doesn't work on your target server's hardware.
On to the questions:
Should I use a ManualResetEvent when interacting with the TCP Client collection? I presume the asyc events will need to lock access to this collection.
If you're using TAP-based wrappers, then await will resume on a captured context by default. I explain this in my blog post on async/await.
There are a couple of approaches you can take here. I have successfully written a reliable and performant single-threaded TCP/IP server; the equivalent for modern code would be to use something like my AsyncContextThread class. It provides a context that will cause await to resume on that same thread by default.
The nice thing about single-threaded servers is that there's only one thread, so no synchronization or coordination is necessary. However, I'm not sure how well a single-threaded server would scale. You may want to give that a try and see how much load it can take.
If you do find you need multiple threads, then you can just use async methods on the thread pool; await will not have a captured context and so will resume on a thread pool thread. In this case, yes, you'd need to coordinate access to any shared data structures including your TCP client collection.
Note that SignalR will handle all of this for you. :)
Best way to detect a disconnected client after I have called BeginReceive. I've found the call is stuck waiting for a response so this needs to be cleaned up.
This is the half-open problem, which I discuss in detail on my blog. The best way (IMO) to solve this is to periodically send a "noop" keepalive message to each client.
If modifying the protocol isn't possible, then the next-best solution is to just close the connection after a no-communication timeout. This is how HTTP "persistent"/"keep-alive" connections decide to close. There's another possibile solution (changing the keepalive packet settings on the socket), but it's not as easy (requires p/Invoke) and has other problems (not always respected by routers, not supported by all OS TCP/IP stacks, etc).
Oh, and SignalR will handle this for you. :)
Sending messages to a specific TCP Client. I'm thinking function in custom TCP session class to send a message. Again in an async model, would I need to create a timer based process that inspects a message queue or would I create an event on a TCP Session class that has access to the TcpClient and associated stream? Really interested in opinions here.
If your server can send messages to any client (i.e., it's not just a request/response protocol; any part of the server can send messages to any client without the client requesting an update), then yes, you'll need a proper queue of outgoing requests because you can't (reliably) issue multiple concurrent writes on a socket. I wouldn't have the consumer be timer-based, though; there are async-compatible producer/consumer queues available (like BufferBlock<T> from TPL Dataflow, and it's not that hard to write one if you have async-compatible locks and condition variables).
Oh, and SignalR will handle this for you. :)
I'd like to use a thread for the entire service and use non-blocking principals within, are there anythings I should be mindful of espcially in context of 1. ManualResetEvent etc..
If your entire service is single-threaded, then you shouldn't need any coordination primitives at all. However, if you do use the thread pool instead of syncing back to the main thread (for scalability reasons), then you will need to coordinate. I have a coordination primitives library that you may find useful because its types have both synchronous and asynchronous APIs. This allows, e.g., one method to block on a lock while another method wants to asynchronously block on a lock.
You may have noticed a recurring theme around SignalR. Use it if you possibly can! If you have to write a bare-bones TCP/IP server and can't use SignalR, then take your initial time estimate and triple it. Seriously. Then you can get started down the path of painful TCP with my TCP/IP FAQ blog series.
Writing a one page web application, and knowing that some of the screens would need real-time updates, I am faced to one big general question, whatever API and frontend framework and language I am going to use:
I'll implement data transfer over websocket, should I keep http for any data transfer which would not need real-time updates, or should I just use websocket?
Knowing that websockets are not handled on ALL browsers but most if not all recent ones support it, would it be better for the servers to handle both websocket and http, or should I just use websockets for ALL data transfer?
You will probably end up using both WebSockets and HTTP requests at the end.
WebSockets, because it sounds like you need them (because of the real-time updates) and can afford to require browser support for them (otherwise, you'd be forced to use the older Ajax/Comet based approaches).
HTTP for two possible reasons:
You will sooner or later need a blocking request-response behavior. For example, authenticating a user may need to block for the result before further processing happens, so you need to send a request for authentication and block until you get the result. This can be a bit annoying to handle over WebSockets.
You may need to load heavy data without interrupting the ongoing real-time updates. If you were to load such data over WebSockets (as a single big chunk), it will be queued together with the real-time updates and may delay them.
Both of these issues can be handled over WebSockets, but they are simply easier to solve with simple HTTP Ajax requests.
Use websockets for the following needs,
Server data changes frequently
Multi-user communication
Live feeds etc.,
Refer this for better understanding on websocket usage.
I am currently struggling with a design issue involving REST. The application I am designing has a requirement to send out events and also support pub/sub style of interaction. I am unable to come up with a design to provide these interaction style without breaking the REST’s “Stateless interaction” constraint. I am not against polling as some people seem to be (polling sucks) , but my application demands a event based and pub/sub style of interaction (polling is not an option for me). So, my question is:
Can I design a RESTful application that supports event based and pub/sub interactions without breaking the REST contraint?
Is REST style suitable for this kind of interaction style?
I'd recommend the Distributed Observer Pattern by Duncan Cragg as a good read (bit difficult to grok but worth the effort).
As others have indicated its likely you'll need to use polling but as you rightly say subscribers could register their own interest (POST to create subscription). If you view the subscription as its own resource, a contract between the publisher and subscriber, then I wouldn't view it as a breaking REST constraints (see State and Statelessness at page 217 of RESTful Web Services for the difference between application and resource state)
I assume you mean the server should notify the clients about events. I don't see how the specific technology matters here: you will face the same problems, and have to pick a solution from the same pool, regardless of using REST, SOAP-based web services, or any other alternative.
The basic question is, can your server initiate connections? Complementing this, can the clients listen to a port? If so, the client registers (sub), and the server notifies of events (pub). Both the registration operation and the notification events can be RESTful.
You need both server-initiated connections and listening clients. If either is not an option (e.g., because the client is a web browser), you will have to make do with polling (you can also look into something like websockets, if you're dealing with a browser). Design your polling carefully: the server response to the polling event should indicate a minimum delay before the client may poll again. The initial implementation of the server can return a constant for this delay value, but later on (assuming the clients are well-behaved) this will allow you to control the load on the server, differentiate between critical and less-critical clients, and so on.
And of course, the polling can be RESTful.
I don't see a reason why RESTful interfaces should not support events.
It will have to be done through polling, mind you; and that would be true even if you were to use SOAP instead.
While your web servers should definitely remain stateless, you probably do have a DB somewhere on the back end. You can use this DB to handle subscriptions to events by adding a subscription table.
Webhooks are the answer to this problem. They allow events without violating the REST principles.
Just a fast check on the REST constraints:
client-server architecture
stateless
cache
uniform interface
identification of resource
manipulation of resource through representations
self-desriptive messages
hypermedia of the engine of application state
layered system
code on demand (optional)
From the Fielding dissertation:
The client-server style is the most frequently encountered of the
architectural styles for network-based applications. A server
component, offering a set of services, listens for requests upon those
services. A client component, desiring that a service be performed,
sends a request to the server via a connector. The server either
rejects or performs the request and sends a response back to the
client.
Btw. an event based system would probably violate most of the constraints. It is hard to define things like hypermedia the engine of application state without clients (since the other name of application state is client state) and hyperlinks (since they are meaningless by pub/sub), and so on...
Anyways it is an interesting question how to design an event based system somewhat similar to REST. I think you should publish self-descriptive messages containing RDF, but that's just a tip. Polling can be a viable solution, but if I were you I would not try to force REST on an event based system...
update 2016.05.15.
As far as I understand the client - server architecture - Fielding describes here and here in his dissertation - uses always REQ/REP communication. The client sends the request and the REST service responds. If you want to have something like PUB/SUB without the violation of the client - server constraint, the only way to do that is the usage of polling. If you don't want to use polling, then ofc. you can use a REST service and a websocket service together, it is not forbidden...