I'm writing a server in python that needs to take requests from clients, queue the requests, execute them one at a time, then tell the clients that their particular request has been processed.
Currently the way I've approached it is using a TCP socket server -- however, I'm not sure how to make it so that only one request is being executed at a time from a queue?
The way I would like for it to look:
Client1 -> (a) -> Server
Client2 -> (b) -> Server
Client3 -> (c) -> Server
Server makes queue |a, b, c|
Execute a first. Done? Tell Client 1
Execute b second. Done? Tell Client 2
Execute c third. Done? Tell Client 3
From what I understand, if I have the server recv the client's request, execute it, and respond, that may happen at the same time in different threads. I only want one thread executing all the tasks (because I anticipate many tasks coming in and it'd be slow if everyone was running one at the same time). How do I accomplish that?
There are tons of ways to skin it, but a solution is going to look something like the below:
Client -> Client-Mediator (TCP Port) <--> Server Mediator -> (ServerQ) <- Task Process
The flow would be like this:
Client Process:
Client creates a client mediator on a tcp socket.
Sends whatever info it needs over the port.
Server Mediator receives the request
Creates a response Q for the Task Process
Places the request on the Server Q (command + responseQ)
Wait for response on responseQ
No response after X time timeout ?
Once response comes, read and send response over tcp port.
Server Process:
Reads from Server Q.
Processes command
Write the response to the response Q
Components involved
Client - Simple process that sends requests for tasks to be completed.
Client-Mediator - Creates a connection to the server process.
Server-Mediator - Accepts a client request for task processing, enqueues tasks and waits for response.
Task Process - Reads from ServerQ and waits for a task to come in.
Okay so what Nix said was right but I wasn't sure how to make that exactly happen (my question was how to go about actually making this)
As it turns out I had to start 2 threads: one that executes from the queue, and the other being the main server handler. The server handler spawns threads for each new connection, and the client blocks after sending a request / if the request is successfully queued. This means that the queue needs to be thread-safe / protected with a semaphore or mutex. In the case of python, there is a multiprocessing.Queue class that handles that for you. Whenever a task is executed, the execution thread does a notifyAll() which causes all sleeping threads to wake up and check if their requested task is done. I use a condition variable for that.
Related
I'm using 0MQ to let multiple processes talk to each other (IPC sockets, but should also work via TCP across different nodes). My code is similar to a client/server pattern, but REQ/REP sockets are not enough. Here is a sample conversation. See below for further details.
Process A
Process B
open socket
not started
start process B
-
-
open socket, connect to A
-
send hello (successful start, socket information)
request work
-
-
do work
-
send response (work result 1)
-
send response (work result 2)
-
send unsolicited message
-
send response (work finished)
request termination
-
Actually, A is (even though doing all the requests) closer to be the server component, since it is constantly running. Based on external triggers, A starts a sort of plugin process B.
Every request needs to be answered by a finished response. Before that, N (between 0 and an arbitrary upper bound) responses can be sent from B.
A new request can be sent from A even when the current request is still ongoing (no finished message received). If relevant, the code could be updated to buffer the requests.
B sends an initial message which is not preceded by a request from A.
B can send other messages (logging) anywhere in between, also not preceded by a request.
Optional: A single socket in A should handle multiple plugin processes B, C, D...
A DEALER/ROUTER combination would probably match all requirements, but might be a bit too much. Process B will only ever connect to a single peer. And without the optional requirement above, the same would be true for process A as well. So I'm a bit hesitant to use DEALER and ROUTER sockets which are both able to handle multiple peers.
I have created a web application in jsf and it has a button.
If the button is clicked then it will go to the server side and execute the below function to save the data in a table and I am using mybatis for this.
public void save(A a)
{
SqlSession session = null;
try{
session = SqlConnection.getInstance().openSession();
TestMapper testmap= session.getMapper(TestMapper.class);
testmap.insert(a);
session .commit();
}
catch(Exception e){
}
finally{
session.close();
}
}
Now i have deployed this application in an application server JBoss(wildfly).
As per my understanding, when multiple users try to access the application
by hitting the URL, the application server creates thread for each of the user request.
For example if 4 clients make request then 4 threads will be generated that is t1,t2,t3 and t4.
If all the 4 users hit the save button at the same time, how save method will be executed, like if t1 access the method and execute insert statement
to insert data into table, then t2,t3 and t4 or simultaneously all the 4 threads will execute the insert method and insert data?
To bring some context I would describe first two possible approaches to handling requests. In this case HTTP but these approaches do not depend on the protocol used and the main important thing is that requests come from the network and for their execution some IO is needed (either access to filesystem or database or network calls to other systems). Note that the following description has some simplifications.
These two approaches are:
synchronous
asynchronous
In general to process the typical HTTP request that involves DB access at least four IO operations are needed:
request handler needs to read the request data from the client socket
request handler needs to write request to the socket connected to the DB
request handler needs to read response from the DB socket
request handler needs to write the response to the client socket
Let's see how this is done for both cases.
Synchronous
In this approach the server has a pool (think a collection) of threads that are ready to serve a request.
When the request comes in the server borrows a thread from the pool and executes a request handler in that thread.
When the request handler needs to do the IO operation it initiates the IO operation and then waits for its completion. By wait I mean that thread execution is blocked until the IO operation completes and the data (for example response with the results of the SQL query) is available.
In this case concurrency that is requests processing for multiple clients simultaneously is achieved by having some number of threads in the pool. IO operations are much slower if compared to CPU so most of the time the thread processing some request is blocked on IO operation and CPU cores can execute stages of the request processing for other clients.
Note that because of the slowness of the IO operations thread pool used for handling HTTP requests is usually large enough. Documentation for sync requests processing subsystem used in wildfly says about 10 threads per CPU core as a reasonable value.
Asynchronous
In this case the IO is handled differently. There is a small number of threads handling IO. They all work the same way and I'll describe one of them.
Such thread runs a loop which basically waits for events and every time an event happen it calls a handler for an event.
The first such event is new request. When a request processing is started the request handler is invoked from the loop that is run by one of the IO threads. The first thing the request handler is doing it tries to read request from the client socket. So the handler initiates the IO operation on the client socket and returns control to the caller. That means that the thread is released and it can process another event.
Another event happens when the IO operations that reads from client socket got some data available. In this case the loop invokes the handler at the point where the handler returned the control to the loop after the IO initiate namely it is resumed on the next step that processes the input data (like parses HTTP parameters) and initiates new IO operation (in this case request to the DB socket). And again the handler releases the thread so it can handler other events (like completion of IO operations that are part of other clients' requests processing).
Given that IO operations are slow compared to the speed of CPU itself one thread handling IO can process a lot of requests concurrently.
Note: that it is important that the requests handler code never uses any blocking operation (like blocking IO) because that would steal the IO thread and will not allow other requests to proceed.
JSF and Mybatis
In case of JSF and mybatis the synchronous approach is used. JSF uses a servlet to handle requests from the UI and servlets are handled by the synchronous processors in WildFly. JDBC which is used by mybatis to communicate to a DB is also using synchronous IO so threads are used to execute requests concurrently.
Congestions
All of the above is written with the assumption that there is no other sources of the congestion. By congestion here I mean a limitation on the ability of the certain component of the system to execute things in parallel.
For example imagine a situation that a database is configured to only allow one client connection at a time (this is not a reasonable configuration and I'm using this only to demonstrate the idea). In this case even if multiple threads can execute the code of the save method in parallel all but one will be blocked at the moment when they try to open the connection to the database.
Another similar example is if you are using sqlite database. It only allows one client to write to the DB at a time. So at the point when thread A tries to execute insert it will be blocked if the is another thread B that is already executing the insert. And only after the commit executed by the thread B the thread A would be able to proceed with the insert. The time A depends on the time it take for B to execute its request and the number of other threads waiting to do a write operation to the same DB.
In practice if you are using a RDBMS that scales better (like postgresql, mysql or oracle) you will not hit this problem when using the small number of connection. But it may become a problem when there is a big number of concurrent requests and there is a limitation in the DB on the number of client connections or the connection pool is used to limit the number of connections on the application side. In this case if there are already many connections to the database the new clients will wait until existing requests are finished and connections are closed.
Scenario: I am running a rest server(nghttp2) with two APIs with 4 threads.
/something : takes some time to process
/anything : takes no time to process
Now, in the client side I am creating one session(which is essentially one TCP connection) and making two async requests, first to /something and next to /anything consecutively. The behavior I notice is that server doesn't process the second request until the the first one is finished. In the packet capture I can see nice implementation of HTTP2 multiplexing. But isn't this head of line blocking? Or is it that my expectation that the requests should be processed parallely rather in a interleaving fashion even if they are from the same TCP connection is wrong?
Note: If I create two different session or TCP connection for each request then they are processed parallely.
Half-Established Connections
With a half-established connection I mean a connection for which the client's call to connect() returned successfully, but the servers call to accept() didn't. This can happen the following way: The client calls connect(), resulting in a SYN packet to the server. The server goes into state SYN-RECEIVED and sends a SYN-ACK packet to the client. This causes the client to reply with ACK, go into state ESTABLISHED and return from the connect() call. If the final ACK is lost (or ignored, due to a full accept queue at the server, which is probably the more likely scenario), the server is still in state SYN-RECEIVED and the accept() does not return. Due to timeouts associated with the SYN-RECEIVED state the SYN-ACK will be resend, allowing the client to resend the ACK. If the server is able to process the ACK eventually, it will go into state ESTABLISHED as well. Otherwise it will eventually reset the connection (i.e. send a RST to the client).
You can create this scenario by starting lots of connections on a single listen socket (if you do not adjust the backlog and tcp_max_syn_backlog). See this questions and this article for more details.
Experiments
I performed several experiments (with variations of this code) and observed some behaviour I cannot explain. All experiments where performed using Erlang's gen_tcp and a current Linux, but I strongly suspect that the answers are not specific to this setup, so I tried to keep it more general here.
connect() -> wait -> send() -> receive()
My starting point was to establish a connection from the client, wait between 1 to 5 seconds, send a "Ping" message to the server and wait for the reply. With this setup I observed that the receive() failed with the error closed when I had a half-established connection. There was never an error during the send() on a half-established connection. You can find a more detailed description of this setup here.
connect() -> long wait -> send()
To see, if I can get errors while sending data on a half-established connection I waited for 4 minutes before sending data. The 4 minutes should cover all timeouts and retries associated with the half-established connection. Sending data was still possible, i.e. send() returned without error.
connect() -> receive()
Next I tested what happens if I only call receive() with a very long timeout (5 minutes). My expectation was to get an closed error for the half-established connections, as in the original experiments. Alas, nothing happend, no error was thrown and the receive eventually timed out.
My questions
Is there a common name for what I call a half-established connection?
Why is the send() on a half-established connection successful?
Why does a receive() only fail if I send data first?
Any help, especially links to detailed explanations, are welcome.
From the client's point of view, the session is fully established, it sent SYN, got back SYN/ACK and sent ACK. It is only on the server side that you have a half-established state. (Even if it gets a repeated SYN/ACK from the server, it will just re-ACK because it's in the established state.)
The send on this session works fine because as far as the client is concerned, the session is established. The sent data does not have to be acknowledged by the far side in order to succeed (the send system call is finished when the data is copied into kernel buffers) but see below.
I believe here that the send actually is generating an error on the connection (probably a RST) because the receiving system cannot ACK data on a session it has not finished establishing. My guess is that any system call referencing the socket on the client side that happens after the send plus a short delay (i.e. when the RST has had a chance to come back) will result in an error.
The receive by itself never causes an error because the client side doesn't need to do anything (I mean TCP protocol-wise) for a receive; it's just idly waiting. But once you send some data, you've forced the server side's hand: it either has completed the session establishment (in which case it can accept the data) or it must send a reset (my guess here that it can't "hold" undelivered data on a session that isn't fully established).
How come every site explains that in SSE a single connection stays opened between client and server "With SSE, a client sends a standard HTTP request asking for an event stream, and the server responds initially with a standard HTTP response and holds the connection open"
And then, when server decides it can send data to the client while what I am trying to implement SSE I see on fiddler requests being sent every couple of seconds
For me it feels like long polling and not a one single connection kept opened.
Moreover, It is not that the server decides to send data to the client and it sends it but it sends data only when the client sends next request
If i respond with "retry: 10000" even tough something has happened that the server wants to notify right now, will get to the client only on the next request (in 10 seconds from now) which for me does not really looks like connection that is kept opened and server sends data as soon as he wants to
Your server is closing the connection immediately. SSE has a built-in retry function for when the connection is lost, so what you are seeing is:
Client connects to server
Server myteriously dies
Client waits two seconds then auto-reconnects
Server myteriously dies
Client waits two seconds then auto-reconnects
...
To fix the server-side script, you want to go against everything your parents taught you about right and wrong, and deliberately create an infinite loop. So, it will end up looking something like this:
validate user, set up database connection, etc.
while(true){
get next bit of data
send it to client
flush
sleep 2 seconds
}
Where get next bit of data might be polling a DB table for new records since the last poll, or scan a file system directory for new files, etc.
Alternatively, if the server-side process is a long-running data analysis, your script might instead look like this:
validate user, set-up, etc.
while(true){
calculate next 1000 digits of pi
send them to client
flush
}
This assumes that the calculate line takes at least half a second to run; any more frequently and you will start to clog up the socket with lots of small packets of data for no benefit (the user won't notice that they are getting 10 updates/second instead of 2 updates/second).