I have a J2ME app running on my mobile phone(client),
I would like to open an HTTP connection with the server and keep polling for updated information on the server.
Every poll performed will use up GPRS bytes and would turn out expensive in the long run, as GPRS billing is based on packets sent and received.
Is there a byte efficient way of polling using the HTTP protocol?.
I have also heard of long polling, But I am not sure how it works and how efficient it would be.
Actually the preffered way would be for the Server to tell the phone app that new data is ready to be used that way polling won't be needed to be done, however I don't know of these techniques especially in J2ME.
If you want solve this problem using HTTP only, long polling would be the best way. It's fairly easy. First you need to setup an URL on server side for notification (e.g. http://example.com/notify), and define a notification protocol. The protocol can be as simply as some text lines and each line is an event. For example,
MSG user1
PHOTO user2 album1
EMAIL user1
HEARTBEAT 300
The polling thread on the phone works like this,
Make a HTTP connection to notification URL. In J2ME, you can use GCF HttpConnection.
The server will block if no events to push.
If the server responds, get each line and spawn a new thread to notify the application and loopback to #1.
If the connection closes for any reason, sleep for a while and go back to step 1.
You have to pay attention to following implementation details,
Tune HTTP timeouts on both client and server. The longer the timeout, the more efficient. Timed out connection will cause a reconnect.
Enable HTTP keepalive on both the phone and the server. TCP's 3-way handshake is expensive in GPRS term so try to avoid it.
Detect stale connections. In mobile environments, it's very easy to get stale HTTP connections (connection is gone but polling thread is still waiting). You can use heartbeats to recover. Say heartbeat rate is 5 minutes. Server should send a notification in every 5 minutes. If no data to push, just send HEARTBEAT. On the phone, the polling thread should try to close and reopen the polling connection if nothing received for 5 minutes.
Handling connectivity errors carefully. Long polling doesn't work well when there are connectivity issues. If not handled properly, it can be the deal-breaker. For example, you can waste lots of packets on Step 4 if the sleep is not long enough. If possible, check GPRS availability on the phone and put the polling thread on hold when GPRS is not available to save battery.
Server cost can be very high if not implemented properly. For example, if you use Java servlet, every running application will have at least one corresponding polling connection and its thread. Depending on the number of users, this can kill a Tomcat quickly :) You need to use resource efficient technologies, like Apache Mina.
I was told there are other more efficient ways to push notifications to the phone, like using SMS and some IP-level tricks. But you either have to do some low level non-portable programming or run into risks of patent violations. Long polling is probably the best you can get with a HTTP only solution.
I don't know exactly what you mean by "polling", do you mean something like IMAP IDLE?
A connection stays open and there is no overhead for building up the connection itself again and again. As stated, another possible solution is the HEAD Header of a HTTP Request (forgot it, thanks!).
Look into this tutorial for the basic of HTTP Connections in J2ME.
Pushing data to an application/device without Push Support (like a Blackberry) is not possible.
The HEAD HTTP request is the method that HTTP provides if you want to check if a page has changed or not, it is used by browsers and proxy servers to check whether a page has been updated or not without consuming much bandwidth.
In HTTP terms, the HEAD request is the same as GET without the body, I assume this would be only a couple hundred bytes at most which looks acceptable if your polls are not very frequent.
The best way to do this is to use socket connection. Many application like GMail use them.
Related
I am developing a nodemcu websocket server android client app using java.i successfully created client and connected to it through a websocket client service.i can detect server failure/closed when sending data.but can't detect it at the time of failure that is if server powered off cant know untill some data is send.how to know the server failure at the time of failure.using okhttp 4.1.0 library.can anyone help
how to know the server failure at the time of failure.using okhttp 4.1.0 library.can anyone help
You can't. It's not possible, but, there are workarounds, see below.
Why isn't it possible? Internally, the internet is packet switched, which means data is first gathered up into packets, and then these packets are sent.
Most of the stuff you do on the web feels like it is 'streams' instead (you send 1 character, and one character arrives on the other side). But that's all based on protocols that are built on top of the packet nature of the internet.
When you have an open connection between 2 computers via the internet, no data is actually being sent, at all. It's not like you have a line reserved. Old telephone networks did work like that: When you dialled somebody, you got a dedicated line, and once the line got interrupted, you'd hear beeps to indicate this.
That is not how the internet works. Those wires and everything in between have no idea that there is an open connection at all. That's just some bits in memory on your computer and on the server which lets them identify certain packets as part of the longer conversation those 2 machines were having, is all.
Thus we arrive at why this isn't possible: Given that no packets are flowing whatsoever until one side actually sends data to the other, it is impossible to tell the difference between 'no data being sent right now' and 'somebody tripped over the power cable in the server park'. That's why you don't get that info until you send something (and the reason you get that is only because when you send something, the protocol dictates that the server sends you back a confirmation of receiving what you sent. If that takes too long, your computer will send it a few more times just in case the packet just got lost somewhere, and will eventually give up and conclude that the server can no longer be reached or crashed or lost power, and only then do you get the IOException).
Workarounds
A simple one is to upgrade your own protocol: Dictate that the server or client (doesn't matter who takes the responsibility to do this) sends a do-nothing message at least once a minute. You can then conclude after not receiving that for 100 seconds or so that the connection is probably dead. You can start a timer for 100 seconds, reset it every time you receive any data whatsoever. If the timer ever runs out? Connection is likely dead.
This is somewhat take on this idea built into the protocol that lets you make connections that feel like streams of data. That protocol is called TCP/IP, and the feature is called KeepAlive.
The problem is, you possibly don't get to dictate the TCP/IP settings for your websocket connection. If you can, you can turn on keepalive (for example in java, you use Socket to make raw TCP/IP connections, and it has a .setSoKeepAlive(true) method. Check the API if you can get at the socket or otherwise scan the docs for 'keepalive' and see if there's anything there.
I bet there won't be, which means you have to use the trick I mentioned above: Update your server code to use a timer to send a 'hello!' 60 seconds after any conversation, and update your client code to give up on the connection once 100 seconds have passed (give it 40 additional seconds; sometimes the internet gets a little backed up or servers get a little busy).
The problem: I'm having some packet loss internally. I mean internally because did capture all the traffic with wireshark and confirm the packet arrived at server, but did not arrive at channelRead0 method.
Scenario:
I built a SIP Server using Netty. The system uses UDP to communicate with other sip endpoints and works fine at low load.
My doubt is about design. Since SIP is a session protocol, on every packet received, I need to check what session it belongs to. The heavy workload surely is on the synchronized list that holds all sessions (I know need to optimize this on the future).
The whole system logic is inside channelRead0 method and this probably is the reason i'm losing some packets. The problem start to happens at around 500 pkt/sec.
There is no database connection (yet), the only I/O is writing log to a file which has almost no impact.
The question: How should I proper design this to handle 5000 pkts/sec? Maybe put all packets in a synchronized queue and handle them later?
Thanks for all help
Currently I got a situation which client will totally disconnect without sending an EOF(Such as the client is a phone and suddenly change network for wifi to 4G), but my server will still send message to this client. This will take at least 10 mins until server found out the peer is unreachable.
So is there an option in Java to reduce sending timeout, just like the SO_SNDTIMEO in C?
Android docs are pretty much straightforward with what they have: https://developer.android.com/reference/java/net/SocketOptions.html
SO_TIMEOUT is among the list, but it applies to reading operations only. Send operation completion usually doesn't indicate that a packet has been received by the remote host, but rather indicates that the packet has been accepted by kernel's network queue and will be sent "soon".
I won't blame Android team for not having (or at least not advertising) a socket option for sending timeout, because you don't get much information from completion of a send. It's actually up to the application level to detect disconnects. Enhance your protocol, introduce app level keepalives, try non-blocking socket mode to avoid long operations, keep track of what was actually received by a remote host - send is not enough. This will result in a much more robust application.
I've been looking into making a simple Sockets-based game in Java, and read in multiple places that client sockets are destroyed after a single exchange. Is this good practice for continued connections? The server needs to maintain a connection with a client (i.e. not using socket.accept() every time it wants to tell a client about something), but can't wait every time for the client's response. I already have the server/client running in separate threads, but won't destroying the socket after every exchange mean re-acquiring (or failing to re-acquire) a connection to that client? I've seen so many conflicting websites about sockets in Java and how they should be implemented.
There's no hard and fast rules, but it does depend slightly on what data rates you want to achieve.
For example, YouTube is a streaming video service, but the video data is delivered by means of the client using https to fetch batches of video data. Inefficient, yes, but very easy to program for. There's lots of reasons to use https for an application like YouTube (firewalls, etc), but ultimate power saving and network performance were not one of them. The "proper" way would be to use a protocol like RTP which uses UDP to deliver small packets of data which can then be rearranged into order, you also have to deal with missing frames at the CODEC level, etc. Much less network traffic, friendly to bandwidth constrained network links, but significantly more difficult to deal with traversing across firewalls, in client software, etc.
So if your game is sending modest amounts of data, the only thing wrong with setting up and tearing down a whole socket connection for every message is the nagging feeling you yourself will have that it is somehow not the most efficient solution.
Though it sounds like you have a conflict between the need to communicate between client / server and a need to process something else whilst waiting for the communication to complete. Here you're getting into asynchronous I/O territory. To make that easy i strongly suggest you take a look at ZeroMQ - that will make everything a whole lot simpler.
and read in multiple places that client sockets are destroyed after a single exchange.
Only in the places where that actually happens. There are numerous contexts where it doesn't, the outstanding example being HTTP, where every effort is made to reuse connections.
Is this good practice for continued connections?
The question is a contradiction in terms. A continued connection is a connection that isn't closed. A closed connection can't be continued.
The server needs to maintain a connection with a client (i.e. not using socket.accept() every time it wants to tell a client about something), but can't wait every time for the client's response.
The word you are groping for here is 'session'.
I already have the server/client running in separate threads, but won't destroying the socket after every exchange mean re-acquiring (or failing to re-acquire) a connection to that client?
Yes.
I've seen so many conflicting websites about sockets in Java and how they should be implemented.
You should use a connection pool at the client; a request loop at the server that looks for multiple requests per connection; a client-side facility that closes idle connections after some idle timeout; and a read timeout at the server that closes connections on which no request has been read within the timeout.
I have a typical client server communication - Client sends data to the server, server processes that, and returns data to the client. The problem is that the process operation can take quite some time - order of magnitude - minutes. There are a few approaches that could be used to solve this.
Establish a connection, and keep it alive, until the operation is finished and the client receives the response.
Establish connection, send data, close the connection. Now the processing takes place and once it is finished the server could establish a connection to the client to send the data.
Establish a connection, send data, close the connection. Processing takes place. client asks server, every n minutes/seconds if the operation is finished. If the processing is finished the client fetches the data.
I was wondering which approach would be the best way to use. Is there maybe some "de facto" standard for solving this problem? How "expensive" is opening a socket in Java? Solution 1. seems pretty nasty to me, but 2. and 3. could do. The problem with solution 2. is that the server needs to know on which port the client is listening, while solution 3. adds some network overhead.
is good enought
will not work at many situations, for example wne client is under firewall, NAT, and so on. Server usually accepts incoming connections from everywhere, desktops usualy not
better than 1 just because you will haven't problems when connection is lost
solutions 1+3 - make long waiting connections, with periodical sleep and reconnect after. I mean: connect to server, wait 30 sec for data, if no data received, sleep for 10 sec, loop.
Opening sockets is sometimes expensive, but not so expensive that your data processing.
I see an immediate problem with option 2. If the client is behind a firewall, he might very well be allowed to connect and do the request, but the server might be prevented to connect back to the cilent.
As you say, option 1 looks a bit nasty (not too nasty though, could work well), so among the options listed, I would go for option 3. Perhaps the server could estimate the time that's left of the processing, and hint the client, in each poll, of when it's about time to check back.