I think, I don't really get concept of asynchronous Servlet. First of all, why we had to mark asyncSupport = true? Whether it true/false I can created ThreadPool and add task to it, to execute that task asynchronous, right? So what is the difference, what I cannot achieve without asyncSupport? Any example appreciated.
AsyncContext is convenient when you do need to keep the connection until you have some data to return after some time in the future without blocking the thread.
In one project I had a remote client which connected to the server and waited (long timeout) for the command from server. So called long-polling approach. Once server has some data to send it takes the AsyncContext and commits the response. It's very convenient as otherwise we would need to block a thread.
Related
Lets say I create an async REST API in Spring MVC with Java 8's Completeable.
How is this called in the client? If its non blocking, does the endpoint return something before processing? Ie
#RequestMapping("/") //GET method
public CompletableFuture<String> meth(){
thread.sleep(10000);
String result = "lol";
return CompletableFuture.completedFuture(result);
}
How does this exactly work? (This code above is just a randomly made code I just thought of).
When I send a GET request from say google chrome # localhost:3000/ then what happens? I'm a newbie to async APIs, would like some help.
No, the client doesn't know it's asynchronous. It'll have to wait for the result normally. It's just the server side that benefits from freeing up a worker thread to handle other requests.
In this version it's pointless, because CompletableFuture.completedFuture() creates a completed Future immediately.
However in a more complex piece of code, you might return a Future that is not yet complete. Spring will not send the response body until some other thread calls complete() on this Future.
Why not just use a new thread? Well, you could - but in some situations it might be more efficient not to. For example you might put a task into an Executor to be handled by a small pool of threads.
Or you might fire off a JMS message asking for the request to be handled by a completely separate machine. A different part of your program will respond to incoming JMS messages, find the corresponding Future and complete it. There is no need for a thread dedicated to this HTTP request to be alive while the work is being done on another system.
Very simple example:
#RequestMapping("/employeenames/{id}")
public CompletableFuture<String> getName(#PathVariable String id){
CompletableFuture<String> future = new CompletableFuture<>();
database.asyncSelect(
name -> future.complete(name),
"select name from employees where id = ?",
id
);
return future;
}
I've invented a plausible-ish API for an asynchronous database client here: asyncSelect(Consumer<String> callback, String preparedstatement, String... parameters). The point is that it fires off the query, then does not block the tread waiting for the DB to respond. Instead it leaves a callback (name -> future.complete(name)) for the DB client to invoke when it can.
This is not about improving API response times -- we do not send an HTTP response until we have a payload to provide. This is about using the resources on the server more efficiently, so that while we're waiting for the database to respond it can do other things.
There is a related, but different concept, of asynch REST, in which the server responds with 202 Accepted and a header like Location: /queue/12345, allowing the client to poll for the result. But this isn't what the code you asked about does.
CompletableFuture was introduced by Java to make handling complex asynchronous programming. It lets the programmer combine and cascade async calls, and offers the static utility methods runAsync and supplyAsync to abstract away the manual creation of threads.
These methods dispatch tasks to Java’s common thread pool by default or a custom thread pool if provided as an optional argument.
If a CompletableFuture is returned by an endpoint method and #complete is never called, the request will hang until it times out.
I have 2 microservices (A and B).
A has an endpoint which accepts POST requests. When users make a POST request, this happens:
Service A takes the object from the POST request body and stores it in a database.
Service A converts the object to a different object. And the new object gets sent to service B via Jersey HTTP client.
Step 2 takes place on a Java thread pool I have created (Executors.newCachedThreadPool). By doing step 2 on a new thread, the response time of service A's endpoint is not affected.
However, if service B is taking long to respond, service A can potentially create too many threads when it is receiving many POST requests. To help fix this, I can use a fixed thread pool (Exectuors.newFixedThreadPool).
In addition to the fixed thread pool, should I also use an asynchronous non-blocking HTTP client? Such as the one here: https://hc.apache.org/httpcomponents-asyncclient-dev/. The Jersey HTTP client that I use is blocking.
It seems like it is right to use the async HTTP client. But if I switch to a fixed thread pool, I think the async HTTP client won't provide a significant benefit - am I wrong in thinking this?
Even if you use fixed thread pool all your threads in it will be blocked on step 2 meaning that they won't do any meaningful job - just wait for your API to return a response which is not a pragmatic resource management. In this case, you will be able to handle a limited amount of incoming requests since threads in the thread pool will be always busy instead of handling new requests.
In the case of a non-blocking client, you are blocking just one single thread (let's call it dispatcher thread) which is responsible for sending and waiting for all the requests/responses. It will be running in a "while loop" (you could call it an event loop) and check whether all the packages were received as a response so they are ready for worker threads to be picked up.
In the latter scenario, you get a larger amount of available threads ready to do some meaningful job, so your throughput will be increased.
The difference is that with sync client, step A thread will be doing a connection to step 2 endpoint and wait for a response. Making step 2 implementation async will and just return 200 directly (or whatever) will help on decreasing waiting time; but it will still be doing the connection and waiting for response.
With non-blocking client instead, the step A call itself will be done by another thread. So everything is untied from step A thread. Also, system can make use of that thread for other stuff until it gets a response from step B and needs to resume work.
The idea is that your origin threads will not be idle so much time waiting for responses, but instead being reused to do other work while in between.
The reason to use a non-blocking HTTP-Client is to prevent too much CPU from being used on thread-switching. If you already solve that problem by limiting the amount of background threads, then non-blocking IO won't provide any noticeable benefits.
There is another problem with your setup: it is very vulnerable to DDOS attacks (intentional or accidental ones). If a someone calls your service very often, it will internally create a huge work-load that will keep the service busy for a long time. You will definitely need to limit the background task queue (which is a supported feature of the Executor class) and return 503 (or equivalent) if there are too many pending tasks.
We have a somewhat unique case where we need to interface with an outside API that requires us to long poll their endpoint for what they call real time events.
The thing is we may have as many as 80,000 people/devices hitting this endpoint at any given time, listening for events, 1 connection per device/person.
When a client makes a request from our Spring service to long poll for events, our service then in turn makes an async call to the outside API to long poll for events. The outside API has defined the minimum long poll timeout may be set to 180 seconds.
So here we have a situation where a thread pool with a queue will not work, because if we have a thread pool with something like (5 min, 10 max, 10 queue) then the 10 threads getting worked on may hog the spotlight and the 10 in queue will not get a chance until one of the current 10 are done.
We need a serve it or fail it (we will put load balancers etc. behind it), but we don't want to leave a client hanging without actual polling happening.
We have been looking into using DeferredResult for this, and returning that from the controller.
Something to the tune of
#RequestMapping(value = "test/deferredResult", method = RequestMethod.GET)
DeferredResult<ResponseEntity> testDeferredResult() {
final DeferredResult<ResponseEntity> deferredResult = new DeferredResult<ResponseEntity>();
CompletableFuture.supplyAsync(() -> testService.test()).whenCompleteAsync((result, throwable) -> deferredResult.setResult(result));
return deferredResult;
}
I am questioning if I am on the right path, and also should I provide an executor and what kind of executor (and configuration) to the CompletableFuture.supplyAsync() method to best accomplish our task.
I have read various articles, posts, and such and am wanting to see if anyone has any knowledge that might help our specific situation.
The problem you are describing does not sound like one that can be solved nicely if you are using blocking IO. So you are on the right path, because DeferredResult allows you to produce the result using any thread, without blocking the servlet-container thread.
With regards to calling a long-pooling API upstream, you need a NIO solution as well. If you use a Netty client, you can manage several thousand sockets using a single thread. When the NIO selector in Netty detects data, you will get a channel callback and eventually delegate to a thread in the Netty worker thread pool, and you can call deferredResult.setResult. If you don't do blocking IO the worker pool is usually sized after the number of CPU-cores, otherwise you may need more threads.
There are still a number of challenges.
You probably need more than one server (or network interface) since there are only 65K ports.
Sockets in Java does not have write timeouts, so if a client refuses to read data from the socket, and you send more data than your socket buffer, you would block the Netty worker thread(s) and then everything would stop (reverse slow loris attack). This is a classic problem in large async setups, and one of the reasons for using frameworks like Hystrix (by Netflix).
I have a long-running task (report) which would exceed any TCP connection timeouts before it starts returning data. Asynchronous servlets (introducted in Servlets 3.0) are exactly what I need, however I am limited to Servlet v2.4.
Are there any "roll-your-own" solutions? What I'm doing feels hacked - I kick off the task asynchronously in a thread and just return to the client immediately. The client then polls every few seconds (with ajax), and checks for a "ready" status for this task ID (a static list maintains their status and some handles to the objects processed by the thread). Once ready, I inject the output stream into the work object so the thread can write the results back to the client.
You can implement the Reverse ajax technique which means that instead of polling many times to get the response you get the response once the task has finished.
There is a quick solution to implement reverse-ajax technique by using DWR here. But you should maintain the use of the static List. If your background task business logic is complicated you can use an ESB or something more sophisticated.
I have a Java RMI system. The situation is typical: the client invokes a method of the server.
The client has an internal timer, so if the server doesn't finish in due time (the time is specified in the client), then the client must do something else.
So, the client must wait for the server to finish its job for a specific time and in case the server didn't finish do something else (it doesn't matter what). How can I do this?
I don't care about connection timeouts and so on, assume that the server and client are connected through RMI and everything it's fine, only that the server's job can be computationally intensive and can require some time.
thanks a lot!
Make the RMI call on another thread. Have the originating thread wait a certain length of time for a response from the RMI-calling thread.
Alternatively, have the server RMI thread delegate the task to a worker thread. Return to the caller if the worker thread doesn't respond sufficiently quickly.
In general, when you want operations to timeout in Java, you are talking about one or two synchronous/asynchronous conversion layers. I've never done this with RMI, but I imagine you do something similar. Perhaps asking the participants of this discussion: ( Asynchronous Java RMI ) will be useful. Based on the points made in ( Spring Async RMI Call ), I would say you need to do the following:
Call the RMI service using separate thread(s); consider using executor service.
Expose this with a wrapper that calls through to the executor service and blocks for a finite amount of time for results; consider using Futures.
You need to set the undocumented property called (I think) sun.rmi.transport.tcp.responseTimeout at each client JVM. Value in milliseconds.