Ivan,

I suggest the following:

1. Server sends KEEP_ALIVE feature flag, which means it accepts
OP_KEEP_ALIVE empty message
2. Client sends OP_KEEP_ALIVE when the connection is idle for a
certain period of time
3. Already implemented: when ClientConnectorConfiguration#idleTimeout is
not zero, server disconnects idle clients

This way we don't need server->client keepalives, as you correctly noted.

On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 12:43 PM Ivan Daschinsky <ivanda...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Pavel, I suppose that ideally:
> 1. Client send in handshake flag, that it supports KEEP_ALIVE feature and
> server takes it into account.
> 2. Each request of client can be considered as keep-alive ping.
> 3. Client send failure should be processed using retry policy.
> 4. Server should not send keep-alive packets, it is redundant, but server
> should track requests from client and if there is no requests from client
> with KEEP_ALIVE feature,
> automatically close connection and free resources.
>
> Similar approach is used in zookeeper clients.
>
> пн, 7 февр. 2022 г. в 12:24, Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org>:
>
> > Ivan,
> >
> > Ideally, the check should come from both sides.
> > - Client periodically sends keepalive to server
> > - Server periodically sends keepalive to client
> >
> > Feature flags will be added accordingly, so it is not necessary to
> > implement this in all thin clients.
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 11:43 AM Ivan Daschinsky <ivanda...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I suppose it is great idea, but this functionality can be hard to
> > implement
> > > for some platforms. I.e. sync python client or php (there is no real
> > > multithreading for python (GIL) and php is single threaded by design).
> > But
> > > for async clients it is not very hard to implement. Nevertheless, this
> > > feature should be optional, because of possible technical limitations.
> > >
> > > Pavel, is this check mostly for client side? Or servers can do some
> > actions
> > > if there is no activity from thin client (i.e. closing context and free
> > > resources such as queries' handles and so on?)
> > >
> > > пн, 7 февр. 2022 г. в 11:09, Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org>:
> > >
> > > > Hi Maksim,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > half-state is a possible situation when an Ignite node goes down or
> > > > somehow removes connection to a thin client
> > > >
> > > > Half-open state is also possible when, for example, an intermediate
> > > router
> > > > is rebooted [1].
> > > >
> > > > This is what we seem to have encountered with one of our customers -
> > they
> > > > have a stable cluster, and long-living (multiple days) thin client
> > > > connections which can be idle for some time.
> > > > And only when we send some data on such an idle connection do we
> > discover
> > > > that it is broken.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > But with enabled (true by default) partitionAwareness feature
> clients
> > > can
> > > > be notified about topology changes
> > > >
> > > > Partition awareness is a "lazy" notification in a form of a response
> > > > message flag [2].
> > > > You won't get one on an idle connection.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > the connections are removed on the server side by client idle
> timeout
> > > >
> > > > Idle timeout is disabled by default.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > is it OK to keep such connections alive for a long time
> > > >
> > > > I think it is up to the user.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > in the case of partition awareness features it can lead to wasting
> > TCP
> > > > sockets on Ignite nodes, can't it
> > > >
> > > > Can you please elaborate?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://blog.stephencleary.com/2009/05/detection-of-half-open-dropped.html
> > > > [2]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-23%3A+Best+Effort+Affinity+for+Thin+Clients
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 4:01 PM Maksim Timonin <
> timoninma...@apache.org
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Pavel,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for starting this thread! Can I ask some questions here to
> get
> > > the
> > > > > feature more clearly?
> > > > >
> > > > > As I understand it correctly, half-state is a possible situation
> when
> > > an
> > > > > Ignite node goes down or somehow removes connection to a thin
> client.
> > > But
> > > > > with enabled (true by default) partitionAwareness feature clients
> can
> > > be
> > > > > notified about topology changes. So, there are possible cases:
> > > > > 1. ThinClient connects to a single node.
> > > > > 2. Ignite node removes connection from itself.
> > > > >
> > > > > I like the idea for the case with a single node, as it helps fail
> > fast.
> > > > > But is it OK to connect a client to a single node only?
> > > > >
> > > > > For the second one: you mention that a case for the second option
> is
> > > > > "Long-living and mostly idle connections are especially susceptible
> > to
> > > > this
> > > > > behavior". If I understand correctly the connections are removed on
> > the
> > > > > server side by client idle timeout. Can we just configure the idle
> > > > timeout
> > > > > for cases where we really need keeping alive idle connections? Are
> > > there
> > > > > any other cases with unexpectedly dropped connections?
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm wondering is it OK to keep such connections alive for a long
> > time?
> > > > > Also in the case of partition awareness features it can lead to
> > wasting
> > > > TCP
> > > > > sockets on Ignite nodes, can't it?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 2:24 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> ptupit...@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Igniters,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Please review the proposal to add heartbeat messages to the thin
> > > client
> > > > >> protocol (both 2.x and 3.x) and let me know your thoughts:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-83+Thin+Client+Keepalive
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sincerely yours, Ivan Daschinskiy
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Sincerely yours, Ivan Daschinskiy
>

Reply via email to