I identify connections by public IP address. My understanding until recently (doubting it) is that in such a case, client's subscribing to a channel would reuse the same Channel instance.
A real world example is as follows:
I'm building up an app that requests information from a certain source that is not owned by me. This is done through an HTTP request and a Job. The external resource changes in periodic intervals of time.
My DataChannel class, which inherits from ApplicationCable::Channel manages a cache of the last request so new clients subscribed from the same IP address won't start a new request, but instead reuse the last one.
Summing up:
If I open two tabs and each one subscribes to a channel, do I get two Channel instances even if the connection identifier is the same?
I'm not seeking for a way to do so, just pointing me in the right direction is enough and actually far more valuable.
No, they aren't.
I needed to add some synchronization between all instances owned by a client with connection identified with IP address.
For this, I used Redis DLM, so I could acquire and release locks and thus perform computations which were intended to be unique.
There might be a better way to do so, but I couldn't imagine one that didn't require patching the ActionCable sources. Any further comment is appreciated as always.
Related
I'm looking at moving my app's deployment to Heroku, and I'd like to determine if it can correctly run there on the basic plan before putting in the effort to migrate. The basic plan limits Redis to 20 connections.
I don't fundamentally understand the Rails/Redis connection architecture. Is there a single connection to Actioncable, which is then distributing the data, or is the connection per actual client (i.e. one connection for every browser tab)?
As per the docs,
An individual user will create one consumer-connection pair per browser tab, window, or device they have open.
ActionCable lets you identify a connection using a connection identifier, typically a global object called current_user in most cases. With this approach, you can later retrieve all open connections by a given user (and potentially disconnect them all if the user is deleted or unauthorized or have too many connections open).
Also, note that ActionCable uses a worker pool to run connection callbacks and channel actions in isolation from your server's main thread.
One of the new features of MQTT 5 is the shared subscriptions feature, which allows client-side load balancing between multiple workers, so that multiple workers can be responsible for handling messages, but every message is only ever sent to a single server.
By default, this works with a round-robin approach, but I am in the need of a slightly more advanced scenario:
What I want is some kind of routing, so that one of the messages' properties gets used as some kind of routing key. I.e., I want multiple workers to be responsible for the messages, but all messages with value X in their routing key property should always go to the same worker, and all messages with Y should do as well. The workers for X and Y may be different, but all messages with X should always go to the same one.
Question 1: Is this even possible with MQTT 5? If so, what is the term I need to look for? I tried googling for this, but wasn't really successful (mainly, I guess, because I don't know exactly what to look for).
Now, supposed this is possible: How can I then handle cases where nodes join or leave? Then I still want only a single node to be responsible, so it would be great if the assignment was not statically, but could be adjusted dynamically (or even better, would adjust itself automatically). However, what I strictly need to avoid is that two messages with X ever go to different servers at the same time.
Question 2: Supposed, this is not possible – what alternatives do I have to MQTT 5?
You don't at a protocol level. That is the whole point of a shared subscription to distribute the incoming messages evenly across all the subscribers.
This also goes against the pub/sub paradigm, that messages are published to a topic not an individual subscriber.
If you want to route messages differently publish them to different topics. There is nothing to stop you republishing a message on a separate topic based on it's meta data once it's been received by a client if needed.
If develop a online real time game with websocket, multiplayers running on the different containers, how to sync data when add or reduce containers if they are playing?
Does kubernetes has any good feature on this case?
ThatBrianDude already gave an awesome answer, and mine will not be that good. But I think your last comment gave us more hints about the architecture you have in mind. I hope my humble answer will shed a light on more ideas to your game. Here are some suggestions:
First, avoid keeping any state in the websocket apps.
The basic idea with containers is that they should be stateless.
ThatBrianDude
So, why not use caches and a messaging layer to help you with that. Imagine the following examples:
Situation 1: if the client sends an action to the websocket server, the server should put it in a queue/topic (some other service will process it later on).
Situation 2: The server might also listen to a(some) topic(s) for some types of messages, and send them back to the clients that need that information.
Situation 3: when the client asks for information or if the websocket server needs some information to send to the client, the server must read it from a cache, as reading from DB might be slow for a multiplayer game.
Situation 4: eventually a container is killed. The clients connected to that server will receive a connection error, and should reconnect. That means another handshake, and the player might feel it, depending on what the game was doing, so killing a container should not happen that often. But that would be just it, no information is lost.
This way, the websocket server containers are totally stateless, and the messaging topics and caches will help you to: provide all the information needed to containers, and; keep websockets, persistance and processing isolated and scalable.
Summing up, the information would flow like this:
clients are showering the websocket server containers with actions
websocket servers just send them to the messaging layer
processing containers (which can be scalled too!) receive those messages, process them, save to the database and/or to a cache and eventually send more messages to other topics
(optional) websocket servers receive those messages and send them to the clients.
Or like this:
clients ask for information or websocket servers periodically need to send the world state to clients
websocket servers look up the information in the cache
and send it to the clients.
Or even like this:
Some processing servers are independent of messages, they just read the game/world state (from the cache?) periodically
they process the physics and mechanics of the game
and save the result back in the cache, which will be sent to the clients by the websocket servers periodically, or send it in a topic so the websocket server can listen to it and send it to the clients.
Lastly, don't forget the suggestion to have one machine responsible for one game/world. It would be nice if each processing server (or each thread of a server) works with one game/world. That would make it easier to persist things without the need to sync stuff.
The basic idea with containers is that they should be stateless.
This means that any persistant data your game might have (highscores etc.) must be saved to a persistant DB whereas other temporary data like current ingame score or nickname etc. can stay inside the memory of the container and be gone once the container dies.
how to sync data when add or reduce containers if they are playing?
This sounds like you want to use multiple containers computing one game world?
Thats a whole other beast on its own but you might want to take a look at SpatialOS which pretty much allows for massive multiplayer worlds and is designed for games that require more than one machine per world.
If thats not what you are looking for I would recommend you to keep one machine responsible for one game/world as you will avoid high complexity when you try to sync stuff later on.
I have a strange szenario:
Webserver / Appserver (Java) sends requests to many different satellite systems (on customers site). Only satellite systems can initiate connection due to firewall rules.
The model I think should be something like REQ/REP, but here the REQuester have to bind and the REPlyer would have to connect.
Is this possible and a stable architecture?
Are there better solutions? (We first had WebSockets in mind...)
Remark: we don't have to use Java on both ends. To be precise on customers site we have Delphi, but we could bridge it somehow.
The model I think should be something like REQ/REP, but here the
REQuester have to bind and the REPlyer would have to connect.
This will be problematic. When the server initiates the connection, it must be aware of all peers and their bind address. Not a big deal for a handful of peers, but for many peers changing constantly, it's a mess.
Only satellite systems can initiate connection due to firewall rules.
If that's the case, your mileage will vary with WebSockets; google around, lots of info on this.
Are there better solutions?
Well, with ZeroMq, one solution that comes to mind to support client request initiation is this:
Server binds with ROUTER
Clients connect with DEALER.
This approach offers bi-directional request/reply, does not block (asynchronous), and eliminates the client-side bind problem mentioned in your question. Here, the server binds, and either side can initiate the conversation.
I recommend reading this section in the guide, it covers extended async request/reply and message enveloping, important when using ROUTER/DEALER sockets.
With Delphi XE2, what is the most reliable method to detect if the computer is able to do the following things?
reach a specific website with HTTP which does not have a fixed IP address
send and receive e-mail with any local or remote e-mail client
There are too many factors involved (type of Internet connection, firewall/router rules, proxies, etc). The most reliable approach is to simply not try to determine the current state and just attempt the desired operation (perform the actual HTTP request, or the SMTP/POP3/IMAP operation, etc), and just be prepared to react to any errors. You can detect connection-related errors and prompt the user to check their Internet connection before retrying.
Use TIdHTTP.Get and try to download http://google.com.
Of course it depends on the definition of being connected to the internet. Sometimes web traffic (port 80) is blocked while other ports are open. Fortunately, nowadays most people are actually allowed to browse the web, since it also provides help with their daily activities. Google is probably one of the least firewalled websites with one of the highest uptimes.
But still, it's a lucky guess. Depending on what you need it for, you might as well just try your thing and see if it works. If not, apparently the computer was not properly connected, even if it could reach Google. :)
[edit]
Because of the discussion. InternetCheckConnection is a good alternative too, but it also checks the connection by pinging an actual server.
MSDN says
Use the InternetCheckConnection function to check the connection to
the Internet. It attempts to ping the server designated by the URL
that is passed to the function. If the FLAG_ICC_FORCE_CONNECTION flag
is set and the URL is NULL, the function checks to see if there is an
entry in the server database for the nearest server. If one exists,
the function pings that server
But since this function uses ping, it may be a bit faster than actually retrieving content. On the other hand, many firewalls actively refuse pings.