Asides from a constant 24/7 ping, how can I monitor a connection status to a site to ensure that it is up.
For example, 192.168.0.1 <-> 192.168.20.1, measuring the connection between these two sites.
I would suggest trying to simulate the usual actions you perform when you are working with the site. For example if the other site is mostly used as a file server I would write a script that will copy files to and from the site. If it is a web server then loading the main page every few minutes is a good idea.For authentication servers logging in is what you want.
Try to think about the most common functionality and simulate it.
Related
I'm using Electron, which is based on Chromium, to create an offline desktop application.
The application uses a remote site, and we are using a service worker to offline parts of the site. Everything is working great, except for a certain situation that I call the "airplane wifi situation".
Using Charles, I have restricted download bandwidth to 100bytes/s. The connection is sent through webview.loadURL which eventually calls LoadURLWithParams in Chromium. The problem is that it does not fail and then activate the service worker, like no connection at all would. Once the request is sent, it waits forever for the response.
My question is, how do I timeout the request after a certain amount of time and load everything from the service worker as if the user was truly offline?
An alternative to writing this yourself is to use the sw-toolbox library, which provides routing and runtime caching strategies for service workers, along with some built in options for helping with these sorts of advanced use cases. In particular, you'd want to use the networkTimeoutSeconds parameter to configure the amount of time to wait for a response from the network before you fall back to a previously cached response.
You can use it like the following:
toolbox.router.get(
new RegExp('my-api\\.com'),
toolbox.networkFirst, {
networkTimeoutSeconds: 10
}
);
That would configure a route that matched GET requests with URLs containing my-api.com, and applied a network-first strategy that will automatically fall back to the previously cached response after 10 seconds.
My goal is to send an email out every 5 min from my application even if there isn't a browser open to the application.
I'm using FluentScheduler to manage the tasks; which works up until the server decides to kill the application from inactivity.
My big constraints are:
I can't touch the server. It is how it is and I have to work around it.
I can't rely on a client refreshing a browser or anything else along the lines of using client side scripts.
I can't use any scheduler that uses a database.
What I have been focusing on is trying to create an artificial postback.
Note: The server is load balanced, so a solution could use that
Is there any way that I can keep my application from getting killed by the server?
You could use a monitoring service like https://www.pingdom.com/ to ping the server at regular intervals. Just make sure it hits an endpoint that invokes .NET code and not a static resource.
Situation: Two web servers, and a browser client. The client has an open websockets connection with Server A. Server A decides that this client should really be serviced by Server B.
I would like to know if there is any established technique for performing this hand-over?
It would be great if this could happen as invisibly as possible for my client side code - but I haven't come across any feature which would allow this.
Best I have come up with so far is Server A sending a 'you should really deal with Server X' message, client closing the WS session and then sending some http request which will get routed to the correct server, and upgraded to WS. I can see the presense of load balancers making this complicatied though.
Any thoughts?
From a programming point of view, the socket connection is treated as an open file handle, and that's what you are trying to pass along. For that, I would check out the question "Portable way to pass file descriptor between different processes" for a handful of methods.
But if you are not writing your own web server, and are looking for an off-the-shelf method for Apache, etc, this probably won't help you much.
Summary: is there a daemon that will do postbacks when a user connects/disconnects via TCP, or is it a good idea to write one?
Details:
There are a number of questions based around this already; but I believe that this is a different "twist" on it. We're writing a Ruby on Rails web application, and we would like to be able to tell if a user is "online" or "offline", where the following definitions apply:
"online" - the user's browser is open and maintaining a TCP connection to one of our servers.
"offline" - the user's browser is no longer connected to one of our servers.
What we're thinking is a convenient way of doing this is to run a completely separate "online state" server that each of our users will connect to (exactly once):
when a connection is made to the "online state" server, it will postback to our actual RoR site and let it know "this user just logged on".
when a connection is lost from the "online state" server, it will postback to our actual RoR site and let it know "this user just logged off".
This methodology seems reasonable and keeps things quite modularized (the online state server, for instance, will be quite simple, which is nice). We're able to write this online state server, but have the following questions:
Any specific problems with the above architecture that we haven't taken into account?
Is there a daemon or application out there that does this already? Why reinvent the wheel, if it has already been written?
Is there a push server out there that offers this functionality (i.e. it maintains connections to the users, but will postback or send notifications upstream to the web servers when a user connects or disconnects?)
Is this something you envisage users would install on their systems?
If you are looking for a browser based system, WebSockets are probably your only option using something like Socket.IO http://socket.io/.
The node.js socket server provided as part of this project can be found on github: http://github.com/LearnBoost/Socket.IO-node
Node.js is a great platform designed for exactly this problem domain and there are a number of WebSocket servers for node.
Unless your app is entirely ajax based and uses a single parent page, you would need to create a persistent parent frame containing the socket that wraps your application, as each time the user clicks a link the page unloads and reloads, resulting in disconnection and re-connection from the state server.
I am to build a web application which will accept different events from external sources and present them quickly to the user for further actions. I want to use Ruby on Rails for the web application. This project is a internal development project. I would prefer simple and easy to use solutions for rapid development over high reliable and complex systems.
What it should do
The user has the web application opened in his browser. Now an phone call comes is. The phone call is registered by a PBX monitoring daemon. In this case via the Asterisk Manager Interface. The daemon sends the available information (remote extension, local extension, call direction, channel status, start time, end time) somehow to the web application. Next the user receives a notified about the phone call event. The user now can work with this. For example by entering a summary or by matching the call to a customer profile.
The duration from the first event on the PBX (e.g. the creation of a new channel) to the popup notification in the browser should be short. Given a fast network I would like to be within two seconds. The single pieces of information about an event are created asynchronously. The local extension may be supplied separate from the remote extension. The user can enter a summary before the call has ended. The end time, new status etc. will show up on the interface as soon as one party has hung up.
The PBX monitor is just one data source. There will be more monitors like email or a request via a web form. The monitoring daemons will not necessarily run on the same host as the database or web server. I do not image the application will serve thousands of logged in users or concurrent requests soon. But from the design 200 users with maybe about the same number of events per minute should not be a scalability issue.
How should I do?
I am interested to know how you would design such an application. What technologies would you suggest? How do the daemons communicate their information? When and by whom is the data about an event stored into the main database? How does the user get notified? Should the browser receive a complete dataset on behalf of a daemon or just a short note that new data is available? Which JS library to use and how to create the necessary code on the server side?
On my research I came across a lot of possibilities: Message brokers, queue services, some rails background task solutions, HTTP Push services, XMPP and so on. Some products I am going to look into: ActiveMQ, Starling and Workling, Juggernaut and Bosh.
Maybe I am aiming too hight? If there is a simpler or easier way, like just using the XML or JSON interface of Rails, I would like to read this even more.
I hope the text is not too long :)
Thanks.
If you want to skip Java and Flash, perhaps it makes sense to use a technology in the Comet family to do the push from the server to the browser?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_%28programming%29
For the sake of simplicity, for notifications from daemons to the Web browser, I'd leave Rails in the middle, create a RESTful interface to that Rails application, and have all of the daemons report to it. Then in your daemons you can do something as simple as use curl or libcurl to post the notifications. The Rails app would then be responsible for collecting the incoming notifications from the various sources and reporting them to the browser, either via JavaScript using a Comet solution or via some kind of fatter client implemented using Flash or Java.
You could approach this a number of ways but my only comment would be: Push, don't pull. For low latency it's not only quicker it's more efficient, as your server now doesn't have to handle n*clients once a second polling the db/queue. ActiveMQ is OK, but Starling will probably serve you better if you're not looking for insane levels of persistence.
You'll almost certainly end up using Flash on the client side (Juggernaut uses it last time I checked) or Java. This may be an issue for your clients (if they don't have Flash/Java installed) but for most people it's not an issue; still, a fallback mechanism onto a pull notification system might be prudent to implement.
Perhaps http://goldfishserver.com might be of some use to you. It provides a simple API to allow push notifications to your web pages. In short, when your data updates, send it (some payload data) to the Goldfish servers and your client browsers will be notified, with the same data.
Disclaimer: I am a developer working on goldfish.
The problem
There is an event - either external (or perhaps internally within your app).
Users should be notified.
One solution
I am myself facing this problem. I haven't solved it yet, but this is how I intend to do it. It may help you too:
(A) The app must learn about the event (via an exposed end point)
Expose an end point by which you app can be notified about external events.
When the end point is hit (and after authentication then users need to be notified).
(B) Notification
You can notify the user directly by changing the DOM on the current web page they are on.
You can notify users by using the Push API (but you need to make sure your browsers can target that).
All of these notification features should be able to be handled via Action Cable: (i) either by updating the DOM to notify you when a phone call comes in, or (ii) via a push notification that pops up in your browser.
Summary: use Action Cable.
(Also: why use an external service like Pusher, when you have ActionCable at your disposal? Some people say scalability, and infrastructure management. But I do not know enough to comment on these issues. )