I have a very simple node.js server that I use to ping some servers I need to keep online.
Using Express I have a very simple endpoint I can access that will perform a loop of requests and report the results.
Using res.write() on each loop, the webpage I load can show me the progress as it's happening.
The problem is, this progress doesn't happen in Safari on either OS X or iOS. It waits until the process is complete and then dumps the whole output in 1 go.
Here's an example of my code:
router.route('/test').get(function(req, res)
{
res.write('<html><head></head><body>');
res.write('Starting tests...<br />');
performServerTests(req, res, function(results)
{ // Each loop within performServerTests also uses res.write()
res.write('<br />Complete');
res.end('</body></html>');
});
});
Is there a known reason why Safari would wait for the res.end() call before displaying what it already has, while Chrome shows each res.write() message as it receives it?
Thanks
When using chunked transfers (what you're trying to do), browsers are generally waiting for a minimum amount of data to be received before starting rendering. The exact size is browser-specific - see Using "transfer-encoding: chunked", how much data must be sent before browsers start rendering it? for some quite recent data points on this.
You example could for example be written like this (adding some headers to be explicit too):
router.route('/test').get(function(req, res)
{
res.setHeader('Content-Type', 'text/html; charset=UTF-8');
res.setHeader('Transfer-Encoding', 'chunked');
res.write('<html><head></head><body>');
res.write('Starting tests...<br />');
var buf = ""
for (var i = 0; i < 500; i++) {
buf += " "
}
res.write(buf);
performServerTests(req, res, function(results)
{ // Each loop within performServerTests also uses res.write()
res.write('<br />Complete');
res.end('</body></html>');
});
});
Related
I know you can use navigator onLine inside the renderer process because it's a rendered inside a browser. But what I'm trying to do is something like this in the main process:
if (navigator.onLine){
mainWindow.loadURL("https://google.com")
} else {
mainWindow.loadFile(path.join(__dirname, 'index.html'));
}
So basically if the user is offline, just load a local html file, and if they're online, take them to a webpage. But, like expected, I keep getting the error that 'navigator is not defined'. Does anyone know how can I somehow import the navigate cdn in the main process? Thanks!
TL;DR: The easiest thing to do is to just ask Electron. You can do this via the net module from within the Main Process:
const { net } = require ("electron");
const isInternetAvailable = () => return net.isOnline ();
// To check:
if (isInternetAvailable ()) { /* do something... */ }
See Electron's documentation on the method; specifically, this approach doesn't tell you whether your service is accessible via the internet, but rather that a service can be contacted (or not even this, as the documentation mentions links which would not involve any HTTP request at all).
However, this is not a reliable measurement and you might want to increase its hit rate by manuallly checking whether a certain connection can be made.
In order to check whether an internet connection is available, you'll have to make a connection yourself and see if it fails. This can be done from the Main Process using plain NodeJS:
// HTTP code basically from the NodeJS HTTP tutorial at
// https://nodejs.dev/learn/making-http-requests-with-nodejs/
const https = require('https');
const REMOTE_HOST = "google.com"; // Or your domain
const REMOTE_EP = "/"; // Or your endpoint
const REMOTE_PAGE = "https://" + REMOTE_HOST + REMOTE_EP;
function checkInternetAvailability () {
return new Promise ((resolve, reject) => {
const options = {
hostname: REMOTE_HOST,
port: 443,
path: REMOTE_EP,
method: 'GET',
};
// Try to fetch the given page
const req = https.request (options, res => {
// Yup, that worked. Tell the depending code.
resolve (true);
req.destroy (); // This is no longer needed.
});
req.on ('error', error => {
reject (error);
});
req.on ('timeout', () => {
// No, connection timed out.
resolve (false);
req.destroy ();
});
req.end ();
});
}
// ... Your window initialisation code ...
checkInternetAvailability ().then (
internetAvailable => {
if (internetAvailable) mainWindow.loadURL (REMOTE_PAGE);
else mainWindow.loadFile (path.join (__dirname, 'index.html'));
// Call any code needed to be executed after this here!
}
).catch (error => {
console.error ("Oops, couldn't initialise!", error);
app.quit (1);
});
Please note that this code here might not be the most desirable since it just "crashes" your app with exit code 1 if there is any error other than connection timeout.
This, however, makes your startup asynchronous, which means that you need to pay attention on the execution chain of your app startup. Also, startup may be really slow in case the timeout is reached, it may be worth considering NodeJS' http module documentation.
Also, it makes sense to actually try to retrieve the page you're wanting to load in the BrowserWindow (constant values REMOTE_HOST and REMOTE_EP), because that also gives you an indication whether your server is up or not, although that means that the page will be fetched twice (in the best case, when the connection test succeeds and when Electron loads the page into the window). However, that should not be that big of a problem, since no external assets (images, CSS, JS) will be loaded.
One last note: This is not a good metric of whether any internet connection is available, it just tells you whether your server answered within the timeout window. It might very well be that any other service works or that the connection just is very slow (i.e., expect false negatives). Should be "good enough" for your use-case though.
I have an old site running, which also has a chat system, which always used to work fine. But recently I picked up the project again and started improving and the user base has been increasing a lot. (running on a VPS)
Now this shoutbox I have (running at http://businessgame.be/shoutbox) has been getting issues lately, when there are over 30 people online at the same time, it starts to really slow down the entire site.
This shoutbox system was written years ago by the old me (which ironically was the young me) who was way too much into old school Plain Old JavaScript (POJS?) and refused to use frameworks like JQuery.
What I do is I poll every 3 seconds with AJAX if there are new messages, and if YES, load all those messages (which are handed as an XML file which is then parsed by the JS code into HTML blocks which are added to the shoutbox content.
Simplified the script is like this:
The AJAX functions
function createRequestObject() {
var xmlhttp;
if (window.XMLHttpRequest) { // code for IE7+, Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Safari
xmlhttp = new XMLHttpRequest();
} else { // code for IE6, IE5
xmlhttp = new ActiveXObject("Microsoft.XMLHTTP");
}
// Create the object
return xmlhttp;
}
function getXMLObject(XMLUrl, onComplete, onFail) {
var XMLhttp = createRequestObject();
// Check to see if the latest shout time has been initialized
if(typeof getXMLObject.counter == "undefined") {
getXMLObject.counter = 0;
}
getXMLObject.counter++;
XMLhttp.onreadystatechange = function() {
if(XMLhttp.readyState == 4) {
if(XMLhttp.status == 200) {
if(onComplete) {
onComplete(XMLhttp.responseXML);
}
} else {
if(onFail) {
onFail();
}
}
}
};
XMLhttp.open("GET", XMLUrl, true);
XMLhttp.send();
setTimeout(function() {
if(typeof XMLhttp != "undefined" && XMLhttp.readyState != 4) {
XMLhttp.abort();
if(onFail) {
onFail();
}
}
}, 5000);
}
Chat functions
function initShoutBox() {
// Check for new shouts every 2 seconds
shoutBoxInterval = setInterval("shoutBoxUpdate()", 3000);
}
function shoutBoxUpdate() {
// Get the XML document
getXMLObject("/ajax/shoutbox/shoutbox.xml?time=" + shoutBoxAppend.lastShoutTime, shoutBoxAppend);
}
function shoutBoxAppend(xmlData) {
process all the XML and add it to the content, also remember the timestamp of the newest shout
}
The real script is far more convoluted, with slower loading times when the page is blurred and keeping track of AJAX calls to avoid double calls at the same time, ability to post a shout, load settings etc. All not very relevant here.
For those interested, full codes here:
http://businessgame.be/javascripts/xml.js
http://businessgame.be/javascripts/shout.js
Example of the XML file containing the shout data
http://businessgame.be/ajax/shoutbox/shoutbox.xml?time=0
I do the same for getting a list of the online users every 30 seconds and checking for new private messages every 2 minutes.
My main question is, since this old school JS is slowing down my site, will changing the code to JQuery increase the performance and fix this issue? Or should I choose to go for an other technology alltogether like nodeJS, websockets or something else? Or maybe I am overlooking a fundamental bug in this old code?
Rewriting an entire chat and private messages system (which use the same backend) requires a lot of effort so I'd like to do this right from the start, not rewriting the whole thing in JQuery, just to figure out it doesn't solve the issue at hand.
Having 30 people online in the chatbox at the same time is not really an exception anymore so it should be a rigid system.
Could perhaps changing from XML data files to JSON increase performance as well?
PS: Backend is PHP MySQL
I'm biased, as I love Ruby and I prefer using Plain JS over JQuery and other frameworks.
I believe you're wasting a lot of resources by using AJAX and should move to websockets for your use-case.
30 users is not much... When using websockets, I would assume a single server process should be able to serve thousands of simultaneous updates per second.
The main reason for this is that websockets are persistent (no authentication happening with every request) and broadcasting to a multitude of connections will use the same amount of database queries as a single AJAX update.
In your case, instead of everyone reading the whole XML every time, a POST event will only broadcast the latest (posted) shout (not the whole XML), and store it in the XML for persistent storage (used for new visitors).
Also, you don't need all the authentication and requests that end up being answered with a "No, there aren't any pending updates".
Minimizing the database requests (XML reads) should prove to be a huge benefit when moving from AJAX to websockets.
Another benifit relates to the fact that enough simultaneous users will make AJAX polling behave the same as a DoS attack.
Right now, 30 users == 10 requests per second. This isn't much, but it can be heavy if each request would take more than 100ms - meaning, that the server answers less requests than it receives.
The home page for the Plezi Ruby Websocket Framework has this short example for a shout box (I'm Plezi's author, I'm biased):
# finish with `exit` if running within `irb`
require 'plezi'
class ChatServer
def index
render :client
end
def on_open
return close unless params[:id] # authentication demo
broadcast :print,
"#{params[:id]} joind the chat."
print "Welcome, #{params[:id]}!"
end
def on_close
broadcast :print,
"#{params[:id]} left the chat."
end
def on_message data
self.class.broadcast :print,
"#{params[:id]}: #{data}"
end
protected
def print data
write ::ERB::Util.html_escape(data)
end
end
path_to_client = File.expand_path( File.dirname(__FILE__) )
host templates: path_to_client
route '/', ChatServer
The POJS client looks like so (the DOM update and from data access ($('#text')[0].value) use JQuery):
ws = NaN
handle = ''
function onsubmit(e) {
e.preventDefault();
if($('#text')[0].value == '') {return false}
if(ws && ws.readyState == 1) {
ws.send($('#text')[0].value);
$('#text')[0].value = '';
} else {
handle = $('#text')[0].value
var url = (window.location.protocol.match(/https/) ? 'wss' : 'ws') +
'://' + window.document.location.host +
'/' + $('#text')[0].value
ws = new WebSocket(url)
ws.onopen = function(e) {
output("<b>Connected :-)</b>");
$('#text')[0].value = '';
$('#text')[0].placeholder = 'your message';
}
ws.onclose = function(e) {
output("<b>Disonnected :-/</b>")
$('#text')[0].value = '';
$('#text')[0].placeholder = 'nickname';
$('#text')[0].value = handle
}
ws.onmessage = function(e) {
output(e.data);
}
}
return false;
}
function output(data) {
$('#output').append("<li>" + data + "</li>")
$('#output').animate({ scrollTop:
$('#output')[0].scrollHeight }, "slow");
}
If you want to add more events or data, you can consider using Plezi's auto-dispatch feature, that also provides you with an easy to use lightweight Javascript client with an AJAJ (AJAX + JSON) fallback.
...
But, depending on your server's architecture and whether you mind using heavier frameworks or not, you can use the more common socket.io (although it starts with AJAX and only moves to websockets after a warmup period).
EDIT
Changing from XML to JSON will still require parsing. The question is actually whether XML vs. JSON parsing speeds.
JSON will be faster on the client javascript, according to the following SO question and answer: Is parsing JSON faster than parsing XML
JSON seems to be also favored on the server-side for PHP (might be opinion based rather than tested): PHP: is JSON or XML parser faster?
BUT... I really think your bottleneck isn't the JSON or the XML. I believe the bottleneck relates to the multitude of times that the data is accessed, (parsed?) and reviewed by the server when using AJAX.
EDIT2 (due to comment about PHP vs. node.js)
You can add a PHP websocket layer using Ratchet... Although PHP wasn't designed for long running processes, so I would consider adding a websocket dedicated stack (using a local proxy to route websocket connections to a different application).
I love Ruby since it allows you to quickly and easily code a solution. Node.js is also commonly used as a dedicated websocket stack.
I would personally avoid socket.io, because it abstracts the connection method (AJAX vs Websockets) and always starts as AJAX before "warming up" to an "upgrade" (websockets)... Also, socket.io uses long-polling when not using websockets, which I this is terrible. I'd rather show a message telling the client to upgrade their browser.
Jonny Whatshisface pointed out that using a node.js solution he reached a limit of ~50K concurrent users (which could be related to the local proxy's connection limit). Using a C solution, he states to have no issues with more than 200K concurrent users.
This obviously depends also on the number of updates per second and on whether you're broadcasting the data or sending it to specific clients... If you're sending 2 updates per user per second for 200K users, that's 400K updates. However, updating all the users only once every 2 seconds, that's 100K updates per second. So trying to figure out the maximum load can be a headache.
Personally, I didn't get to reach these numbers on my apps, so I never got to discover Plezi's limits first hand... although, during testing, I had no issues with sending hundred of thousands of updates per second (but I did had a connection limit due to available ports and open file handle limits on my local machine).
This definitely shows how vast of an improvement you can reach by utilizing websockets (especially since you stated to notice slowdowns with 30 concurrent users).
I've been experimenting with node-serialport library to access devices connected to a USB hub and send/receive data to these devices. The code works fine on linux but on windows(windows 8.1 and windows 7) I get some odd behaviour. It doesn't seem to work for more than 2 devices, it just hangs when writing to the port. The callback for write method never gets called. I'm not sure how to go about debugging this issue. I'm not a windows person, if someone can give me some directions it would be great.
Below is the code I'm currently using to test.
/*
Sample code to debug node-serialport library on windows
*/
//var SerialPort = require("./build/Debug/serialport");
var s = require("./serialport-logger");
var parsers = require('./parsers');
var ee = require('events');
s.list(function(err, ports) {
console.log("Number of ports available: " + ports.length);
ports.forEach(function(port) {
var cName = port.comName,
sp;
//console.log(cName);
sp = new s.SerialPort(cName, {
parser: s.parsers.readline("\r\n")
}, false);
// sp.once('data', function(data) {
// if (data) {
// console.log("Retrieved data " + data);
// //console.log(data);
// }
// });
//console.log("Is port open " + sp.isOpen());
if(!sp.isOpen()) {
sp.open(function(err) {
if(err) {
console.log("Port cannot be opened manually");
} else {
console.log("Port is open " + cName);
sp.write("LED=2\r\n", function(err) {
if (err) {
console.log("Cannot write to port");
console.error(err);
} else {
console.log("Written to port " + cName);
}
});
}
});
}
//sp.close();
});
});
I'm sure you'd have noticed I'm not require'ing serialport library instead I'm using serialport-logger library it's just a way to use the serialport addons which are compiled with debug switch on windows box.
TLDR; For me it works by increasing the threadpool size for libuv.
$ UV_THREADPOOL_SIZE=20 && node server.js
I was fine with opening/closing port for each command for a while but a feature request I'm working on now needs to keep the port open and reuse the connection to run the commands. So I had to find an answer for this issue.
The number of devices I could support by opening a connection and holding on to it is 3. The issue happens to be the default threadpool size of 4. I already have another background worker occupying 1 thread so I have only 3 threads left. The EIO_WatchPort function in node-serialport runs as a background worker which results in blocking a thread. So when I use more than 3 devices the "open" method call is waiting in the queue to be pushed to the background worker but since they are all busy it blocks node. Then any subsequent requests cannot be handled by node. Finally increasing the thread pool size did the trick, it's working fine now. It might help someone. Also this thread definitely helped me.
As opensourcegeek pointed all u need to do is to set UV_THREADPOOL_SIZE variable above default 4 threads.
I had problems at my project with node.js and modbus-rtu or modbus-serial library when I tried to query more tan 3 RS-485 devices on USB ports. 3 devices, no problem, 4th or more and permanent timeouts. Those devices responded in 600 ms interval each, but when pool was busy they never get response back.
So on Windows simply put in your node.js environment command line:
set UV_THREADPOOL_SIZE=8
or whatever u like till 128. I had 6 USB ports queried so I used 8.
I am trying to use web-workers or threads in my node application for the first time. I am using the webworker-threads npm module.
Basically I would like each worker to make requests to a server, measure the response time and send it back to the main thread.
I tried it many different ways, but I just can't seem to get it working. The basic examples from the docs work. But when I try to require a module ("request" in my case), the workers just seem to stop working, without any error messages. I saw in the docs that require doesn't work inside a worker, so I tried "importScripts()", which doesn't work either. When using threadpools I tried to use .all.eval() but it didn't work either.
Since this is the first time working with web-workers / threads in node, I might misunderstand how to use those things in general. Here is one example I tried:
server.js
var Worker = require('webworker-threads').Worker;
var worker = new Worker('worker.js');
worker.js
console.log("before import");
importScripts('./node_modules/request/request.js');
console.log("after import");
This basic example only prints before import and then stops.
Web workers are native javascript only so you can't achieve what you want with them. Worker threads don't support node.js api or npm packages(like http or request.js). For concurrency you don't need any multithread magic just use async.js or promises. If you want to play with threads then child_processes is the way to go. You could also use an API to manage child_processes like https://github.com/rvagg/node-worker-farm
Considering your example you could write something like this:
main.js
var workerFarm = require('worker-farm')
, workers = workerFarm(require.resolve('./child'))
, ret = 0;
var urls = ['https://www.google.com', 'http://stackoverflow.com/', 'https://github.com/'];
urls.forEach(function (url) {
workers(url, function (err, res, body, responseTime) {
console.log('Url ' + url + 'finished in ' + responseTime + 'ms');
//Ugly code here use async/promise instead
if (++ret == urls.length)
workerFarm.end(workers);
});
});
child.js
var request = require('request');
module.exports = function(url, cb) {
var start = new Date();
request(url, function(err, res, body) {
var responseTime = new Date() - start;
cb(err, res, body, responseTime);
});
};
I am using Websync3, Javascript API, and subscribing to approximately 9 different channels on one page. Firefox and Chrome have no problems, but IE9 is throwing an alert error stating The request is too large for IE to process properly.
Unfortunately the internet has little to no information on this. So does anyone have any clues as to how to remedy this?
var client = fm.websync.client;
client.initialize({
key: '********-****-****-****-************'
});
client.connect({
autoDisconnect: true,
onStreamFailure: function(args){
alert("Stream failure");
},
stayConnected: true
});
client.subscribe({
channel: '/channel',
onSuccess: function(args) {
alert("Successfully connected to stream");
},
onFailure: function(args){
alert("Failed to connect to stream");
},
onSubscribersChange: function(args) {
var change = args.change;
for (var i = 0; i < change.clients.length; i++) {
var changeClient = change.clients[i];
// If someone subscribes to the channel
if(change.type == 'subscribe') {
// If something unsubscribes to the channel
}else{
}
}
},
onReceive: function(args){
text = args.data.text;
text = text.split("=");
text = text[1];
if(text != "status" && text != "dummytext"){
//receiveUpdates(id, serial_number, args.data.text);
var update = eval('(' + args.data.text + ')');
}
}
});
This error occurs when WebSync is using the JSON-P protocol for transfers. This is mostly just for IE, cross domain environments. Meaning websync is on a different domain than your webpage is being served from. So IE doesn't want do make regular XHR requests for security reasons.
JSON-P basically encodes the up-stream data (your 9 channel subscriptions) as a URL encoded string that is tacked onto a regular request to the server. The server is supposed to interpret that URL-encoded string and send back the response as a JavaScript block that gets executed by the page.
This works fine, except that IE also has a limit on the overall request URL for an HTTP request of roughly 2kb. So if you pack too much into a single request to WebSync you might exceed this 2kb upstream limit.
The easiest solution is to either split up your WebSync requests into small pieces (ie: subscribe to only a few channels at a time in JavaScript), or to subscribe to one "master channel" and then program a WebSync BeforeSubscribe event that watches for that channel and re-writes the subscription channel list.
I suspect because you have a key in you example source above, you are using WebSync On-Demand? If that's the case, the only way to make a BeforeSubscribe event handler is to create a WebSync proxy.
So for the moment, since everyone else is stumped by this question as well, I put a trap in my PHP to not even load this Javascript script if the browser is Internet Destroyer (uhh, I mean Internet Explorer). Maybe a solution will come in the future though.