I am using Rails ActionCable.
I can choose between two choices mainly. One of them is to use multiple channels for different functionalities. Other option is to use same channel with multiple conidtions to create the same functionality.
Which one is better while scaling up? What are the disadvantages of relying too much on websockets (Actioncable) while building applications?
Can someone refer me some good article which explains websockets, redis caching and its effect when the application scales up.
Thanking you guys in anticiaption of positive response.
Although I think the question is a duplicate of "Multiple websocket channels, single ws object?", I will add a few specific ActionCable considerations just to clarify.
Which one is better while scaling up?
A single WebSocket connection is (usually) better when scaling up.
Servers have a limit on the number of connections they can handle, which means that adding WebSocket connections per client will consume a limited server resource.
For example, if each client requires 2 WebSocket connections instead of 1, the server's capacity is cut by half (drops from 100% to 50%).
What are the disadvantages of relying too much on websockets (Actioncable) while building applications?
Some machines run older browsers that don't support WebSockets. Also, WebSocket applications and clients are often harder to code, which translates to higher maintenance costs.
Having said that, WebSockets are a wonderful solution to issues that plagued web applications for ages and are superior to polling techniques.
All in all, I would argue that the disadvantages should be ignored since the advantages far outweigh the costs.
However:
Having said that, note that currently the Actioncable implementation is quite slow.
In fact, one might argue that the implementation is so slow that polling would be better.
Comparing ActionCable to AnyCable or the server-side Iodine WebSocket + Pub/Sub solution would immediately highlight the fact that ActionCable should be replaced by other solutions until such time as it's fixed.
Further reading:
I just started reading this article about Ruby WebSockets, Push and Pub/Sub, which seems very well written.
I also wrote an article about the main issues concerning Ruby implementations for WebSockets and how a server-side WebSocket solution could solve these issues. You can read it here.
Related
From all the NMS(network management solutions) I've looked into,
only Zenoss has a daemon to process AMQP messages (meaning my prefered one, Zabbix, is oblivious to it.)
Why is that?
Is AMQP that far away from production ready?
From a glance RabbitMQ 2.0 (or even ØMQ) seem to have solved most problems still standing from the Reddit May 10' test.
)
AMQP scalability and generic design stand to me as an obvious choice for an efficient and agnostic NMS feeder.
Is being agnostic its main flaw?
Is it being ignored by existing NMS solutions because having a proprietary communication protocol makes it harder for enterprises to switch from one NMS to another?
So far, AMQP is an "unrealized potential" for a simple reason : there are several non interoperable versions of the protocol, which makes it very difficult for an ecosystem to emerge.
For instance, RabbitMQ is supporting versions 0.8 and 0.9 of the protocol, Qpid C++ is implementing 0.10 so you've got no way to connect them. Hopefully, the situation should evolve positively in 2011 because the working group is closed to releasing version 1.0 of the protocol and implementers are working together to make sure that interoperability is achieved (it's a condition for marking the current version 1.0 proposal as "final"). When this happens, it should make a lot more sense for third party products to support AMQP.
Also, you should note that having an open messaging protocol doesn't solve all the problems. In the case of a monitoring solution, it would allow various applications do communicate but it wouldn't say what are the expected information in each message or where they should be sent. That's why Qpid has developped it's own monitoring and management protocol on top of AMQP (See Qpid Management Framework)
I am trying to design an event driven system where the elements of the system communicate by generating events that are responded to by other components of the system. It is intended that the components be independent of each other - or as largely independent as I can make them. The system will initially be implemented on Windows 7, and is being written in Delphi. The generated events will be generated by the Delphi code. I understand how to implement a system of the type described on a single machine.
I wish to design the system so that it can readily be deployed on different machine architectures in particular with different components running on a distributed architecture, which may well be different to Windows 7. There is no requirement for the system ever to communicate with any systems external to itself.
I have tried investigating the architecture I need to consider and have looked at the questions mentioned below. These seem to point towards utilising named pipes as a mechanism for inter-hardware communications. As a result of these investigations I have sketched out the following to describe my system - the first part of the diagram is the system as I am developing it; the second part what I have deduced I would need for possible future implementations.
This leads to the following points:
Can you pass events via named pipes?
Is this an appropriate and sensible structure to tackle this problem?
Are there better alternatives?
What have I forgotten (at this level of granularity)?
How is event driven programming implemented?
How do I send a string from one instance of my Delphi program to another?
EDIT:
I had not given the points arising from "#I give crap answers" response sufficient consideration. My initial responses to his points are:
Synchronous v Asynchronous - mostly asynchronous
Events will always be in a FIFO queue.
Connection loss - is not terribly important - I can afford to deal with this non-rigourously.
Unbounded queues are a perfectly good way of dealing with events passed (if they can be) - there is no expectation of large volume of event generation.
For maximum deployment flexibility (operating-system independent), I recommend to take a look at popular open source message brokers which run on the Java platform. Using standard protocols. they integrate well with Delphi and other programming languages, can be used with web applications, and have a large installed user base and active community.
They are quite easy to install and configure in a few minutes, and free / commercial clients for Delphi are available.
Some examples are:
Apache ActiveMQ
OpenMQ
JBoss HornetQ
I also recommend the book "Enterprise Integration Patterns" by Martin Fowler as an overview and introduction, with many simple recipes to handle specific problems.
Note that I am a developer of commercial Delphi clients for enterprise messaging systems, such as xmlBlaster, RabbitMQ, Amazon Simple Queue Service and the three brokers mentioned above.
I can only answer for your point 4 here: You have not yet decided if an event is synchronous or asynchronous. In the async case, you have to decide what to do when messages arrive. Do you have a queue? How big is the queue? Can one grab arbitrary elements in the queue or is it strictly FIFO. What happens if a message is lost (somebody axes the network cable)?
In the sync variant, the advantage is that you got delivery guarantees, but then what do you do when connections are suddenly lost?
Connection loss is going to be a problem. The more machines you have, the greater is the chance that they will occur. Decide how you will handle that.
Another trouble may be what you do if you have a large event and several small. Is the order of transfer FIFO or smallest-first? Can events be reeordered? What are the assumptions here?
The aside is that I hack Erlang a lot. In Erlang all the event-handling is already solved but it also means a specific model is chosen for you (async, unbounded queues, no guaranteed delivery, but detection of connection loss).
I suggest to look at RabbitMQ, http://www.rabbitmq.com/. It has the server and client. Just need some wrapper codes in delphi and you are ready to build your business logic
Cheers
This is probably just an application for a message queue.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms632590(v=vs.85).aspx
FastCGI is old but it still seems like it must be the right answer in some cases.
It seems like the preferred deployment of Perl/Catalyst web applications is with FastCGI.
FastCGI was popular with Rails but seems to no longer be. (Why?)
The Java world doesn't seem to have anything to do with FastCGI. Is something like Tomcat way better than Apache+FastCGI?
Is choosing FastCGI still a good idea or just a lingering technology?
Ted
Since it depends a lot on your setup and requirements, I'll let the "Is X still a right answer?" up to you. However, by looking at different architectures, you can come up with a list of questions to ask to determine if it still is a right answer given specific circumstances.
Concerns of frequent interest
The questions you'll want to ask are usually related to security and flexibility. For security, you'll want to follow the principle of least privilege. For flexibility, you'll want to know if you can run multiple frameworks, multiple versions of the framework and how easily you can delegate work to other tasks.
Other concerns
For a simple web front-end to a database-backed application, not all of these questions are important. You also need to keep in mind that some of the recommendations have nothing to do with what's outlined here. Many web frameworks will recommend whatever architecture is easiest to setup with their framework. They do this because it helps get new users trying out the framework with minimal fuss and without flooding the mailing list. Also, the Java community tends to stick to a common denominator rather than take full advantage of the platform at hand, so they'll often recommend an all-Java solution.
Popular architectures
Single process architectures
From a pure performance point of view, a single process (probably threaded) with an embedded framework probably gives most performance as it reduces most communication overhead between whatever receives the request and whatever produces a response.
Security: a single process must have all of the permissions required to perform every single task it is handed. In simple applications, this might not be a problem. However, its possible you might serve multiple services
Flexibility: probably can't run multiple version of the same framework (e.g. code for different parts of your website require different versions of Java, Rails, Python, etc.). Moreover, changing your setup to serve some work on different machines becomes painful (less difficult when split up on virtual hosts).
Sub-process based architectures
Under the CGI model, you have to pay the price of spawning a new process for each request. Even on UNIX machines where spawning a process is considered cheap, 600 requests a second will kill your server if you spawn a process for each.
Security: to spawn child processes under different user accounts, your gateway probably runs under quite high privileges.
Flexibility: additional flexibility for the multiple frameworks, multiple versions, multiple languages approach, but you're still stuck on the same machine.
Distributed architectures
The FastCGI/SCGI approach tried to solve the CGI process management problem in a clean way. Just keep the process alive. Have the gateway talk to that process to serve the request.
Security: Because the gateway doesn't spawn the processes that serve requests, the gateway can run with far less privileges enabled. Actually, if it only serves as a gateway and doesn't do any work itself, it can run with hardly any privileges at all.
Flexibility: you get even better flexibility than the CGI model because you can forward the request to any machine on the network.
Conclusion
I like FastCGI, because it gives me high flexibility at a price (i.e. request forwarded through socket) I can afford to pay. It's not my full time job to administer systems. I don't develop all the apps I hosts. This means I look for the easiest solution for hosting whatever I try to host. FastCGI popular enough to be supported by major web servers and popular web frameworks. Adding another app usually just boils down to installing and mapping the desired URL to the application over FastCGI.
I am considering Erlang as a potential for my upcoming project. I need a "Highly scalable, highly reliable" (duh, what project doesn't?) web server to accept HTTP requests, but not really serve up HTML. We have thousands of distributed clients (other systems, not users) that will be submitting binary data to central cluster of servers for offline processing. Responses would be very short, success, fail, error code, minimal data. We want to use HTTP since it is our best chance of traversing firewalls.
Given this limited information about the project, can you provide any weaknesses that might pop up using a technology like Erlang? For instance, I understand Erlang's text processing capabilities might leave something to be desired.
You comments are appreciated.
Thanks.
This sounds like a perfect candidate for a language like Erlang. The scaling properties of the language are very good, but if you're worried about the data processing abilities, you shouldn't be. It's a very powerful language, with many libraries available for developers. It's an old language, and it's been heavily used/tested in the past, so everything you want to do has probably already been done to some degree.
Make sure you use erlang version R11B5 or newer! Earlier versions of erlang did not provide the ability to timeout tcp sends. This results in stalled or malicious clients being able to execute a DoS attack on your application by refusing to recv data you send them, thus locking up the sending process.
See issue OTP-6684 from R11B5's release notes.
With Erlang the scalability and reliability is there but from your project definition you don't outline what type of text processing you will need.
I think Erlang's main limitation might be finding experienced developers in your area. Do some research on the availability of Erlang architects and coders.
If you are going to teach yourself or have your developers learn it on the job keep in mind that it is a very different way of coding and that while the core documentation is good a lot of people do wish there were more examples. Of course the very active community easily makes up for that.
I understand Erlang's text processing
capabilities might leave something to
be desired.
The starling project already provides basic unicode support and there is a EEP (Erlang Enhancement Proposal) currently in draft, but going in to bring it into the mainstream of Erlang/OTP support.
I encountered some problems with Redis read performance from Erlang. Here is my question. I tend to think the reason is Erlang-written module, which has troubles while processing tons of strings during communication with Redis.
I have a memory of talking to people who have got so far in using Ruby on Rails and then had to abandon it when they have hit limits, or found it was ultimately too rigid. I forget the details but it may have had to do with using more than one database.
So what I'd like is to know is what features/requirements fall outside of Ruby on Rails, or at least requires such contortions that it is better to use another more flexible framework, even though you may have to lose some elegance or write extra boilerplate code.
Rails (not ruby itself) is proud to be "Opinionated Software".
What this means in practice is that the authors of rails have a certain target audience in mind (themselves basically) and aim rails specifically at that. If X feature isn't needed for that target audience, it doesn't get added.
Off the top of my head, things that rails explicitly doesn't support that people may care about:
Foreign keys in databases
Connections to multiple DB's at once
SOAP web services (since rails 2.0)
Connections to multiple database servers at once
That said, it is very easy to extend rails with plugins, and there are plugins which add all of the above functionality to rails, and a lot more, so I wouldn't really count these as limits.
The only other caveat is that rails is built around the idea of creating CRUD web applications using MVC. If you're trying to do something which is NOT a CRUD web app (like twitter, which is actually a messaging system, or if you are insane and want to use a model like ASP.NET webforms) then you will also encounter problems. In this case you're better off not using rails, as you're essentially trying to build a boat out of bicycle parts.
In all likelihood, the problems you will run into that can't just be fixed with a quick plugin or a day or 2 of coding are all inherent problems with the underlying C Ruby runtime (memory leaks, green threads, crap performance, etc).
Ruby on Rails does not support two-phase commits out of the box, which maybe required if your database-backed application needs to guarantee immediate consistency AND you need to use two or more database schemas.
For many web applications, I would venture that this is not a common use-case. One can perfectly well support eventual consistency with two or more databases. Or one could support immediate consistency with one database schema. The former case is a great problem to have if your app has to support a mondo amount of transactions (note the technical term :). The latter case is more typical, and Rails does just fine.
Frankly, I wouldn't worry about limits to using Ruby on Rails (or any framework) until you hit real scalability problems. Build a killer app first, and then worry about scalability.
CLARIFICATION: I'm thinking of things that Rails would have a hard-time supporting because it might require a fundamental shift in its architecture. I'll be generous and include some things that are part of the gem/plugin ecosystem such as foreign key enforcement or SOAP services.
By two-phase commits, I mean attempting to make two commits to physically distinct servers within one transactional context.
Use case #1 for a two-phase commit: you've clustered your database, so that you have 2 or more database servers and your schema is spread across both servers. You may want to commit to both servers, because you want to allow ActiveRecord think do a "foreign key map" that traverses across the different servers.
Use case #2 for a two-phase commit: you're attempting to implement a messaging solution (sorry, I'm J2EE developer by day). The message producer commits to the messaging broker (one server) and to the database (a different server).
Also found some good discussion about the limits of ActiveRecord.
I think there is a greater “meta-question” here, that could be answered and that is “when is it OK to lean on external libraries to speed up development time?”
Third party libraries are often great and can drastically reduce development time, however there is a major problem, Joel Spolsky calls this “the law of leaky abstractions.” If you look that up on Google his post will come up first. Essentially this means that the trade off in development time means that you have no idea what is going on under the covers. So when something breaks you are completely stuck and have very limited methods of debugging. This also means that if you hit one of the features that are simply unsupported in RAILS, that you really need, you’ll have no next step except to write the feature yourself, if you’re lucky. Many libraries can make this difficult to do.
We’ve been burned badly in my dev shop by this issue. Our solutions worked fine under normal load, but we found that the third party subscription libraries that we were using simply could not stand up to the kind of load that we experienced once our site started to get a large number of concurrent users. This puts us in a very difficult place; essentially we have to rewrite the entire subscription service ourselves, with performance in mind. Doing this means that we’ve wasted all the time that we spent using the library.
Third party libraries can be great for small to medium sized applications; they can drastically reduce development time and hide complexities that aren’t necessary to deal with in the early stages of development. However eventually they will catch up with you and you’ll likely have to rewrite or re-engineer your solution to get past the “law of leaky absctractions”
Ruby don't have a functionality like IsPostBack in ASP.Net
Orion's answer is right on. There are few hard limits to AR/Rails: deploying to Windows, AR connectors that aren't frequently used, e.g. Firebird, ), but even the things he mentioned, multiple databases and DB servers, there are gems and plugins that address those for legacy, sharding, and other reasons.
The real limitation is how time-consuming it is to keep on top of all the things that rails devs are working on, and researching specific issues, given how many blogs, and how much mailing list volume there are.