I am working on a php web application which involves calls to 3rd party web services. Recently I've run into problems because some of the web services are slow and/or time out. (When this happens the service throws an error after 5-6 minutes, which is handled by the web application)
However, the problem arise that while waiting for the result/timeout, all other connections to the web application in the browser (other windows/tabs in IE) stall. It seem to be a problem with the browser, because if opening a secondary window in another browser (e.g. Chrome) the web application serves pages with no delay.
I've considered setting up the web service call asynchronously (a separate server.side process, or an ajax call in the browser), but in the mean time I'd like to know why IE is putting all connections to the web app on hold while waiting for one page? Could it be that a custom header or other trivial markup trick would tell IE to go on with connections to other pages at the same host?
the problem arise that while waiting for the result/timeout, all other connections to the web application in the browser
What you're seeing is normal and expected behavior, if you're using sessions. The default file-based session handler places a lock on the session file when the session owner makes a request. Once the request finishes, the lock is released. In the meantime, if the user makes any further requests, those requests will wait for the lock to be released before they can continue. This behavior prevents a race condition that could otherwise result in session data being lost.
If you aren't using sessions, or you've written your own session handler and it doesn't do locking (most do not, you have to code that behavior yourself), then yeah, IE's being freaky and I have no further suggestions.
I've considered setting up the web service call asynchronously
If the web service is unreliable, this is a good idea. You should consider Gearman, a work/message queue system. It has comprehensive PHP support as a PECL extension.
Related
On our PHP website we have noticed, that if I request pages in 2 separate tabs, the second tab will never start loading until the first tab finishes processing the PHP side (uses LiteSpeed webserver). It's a cloud webhosting that should handle a notable number of visitors. We observed the same behavior on previous hosting with Apache.
Could the issue be in webserver configuration? Or could it be something in our application blocking the processing?
If your application uses PHP sessions (intentionally or not), this will generally be the behavior.
When an application calls session_start() it generates a session for you as a user, and will do a file lock on this session until the execution of the site is done, then the lock will be removed, and the next script waiting for the same session can then proceed.
If you're not going to write any data into the session, it's beneficial to call session_write_close() early on, since this will free the lock, and let other processes (Your other tab) allow being processed.
The locking happens because you obviously don't want two processes trying to write to the same file at once, possibly overriding one of the processes data that was written to the session.
Obviously it could also be something else in your application causing this, but you'd have to actually debug the code to figure out. You could possibly use strace on the command-line as well to try to gather more information.
PHP session locking is explained in depth in https://ma.ttias.be/php-session-locking-prevent-sessions-blocking-in-requests/ - it simply goes into a lot more detail than I did above.
We have a client server architecture with Angular on client side and Apache2 PHP PDO and MySQL on the server side. server side exposing an API to clients that gives them data to show.
Some observations :
some API calls can take very long to compute and return response.
server side seem to handle a single request per client at any given time (im seeing only one coresponding query thats being executed in mysql), that limit comes either from apache or from mysql since front-end sending requests in parallel for sure.
front end cancels requests that are not relevant anymore (data being fetched will not be visible)
seems like requests canceled by front end are not canceled in server side and continues to run anyway, i think even if they are queued they will still run when their turn arrives (even though they were cancelled on client side)
Need help to understand :
what exactly is the cause of not having all requests (or at least X>1 requests) run on parallel? can it be changed?
What configurations should i change in either apache or mysql to overcome this?
is there a way to make apache drop cancelled requests? at least those that are still queued and not started?
Thanks!
EDIT
Following #Markus AO comment (Thanks Markus!!!) this was session blocking related... wish i knew about that before!
OP has a number of tangled problems on the table. However I feel these are worthwhile concerns (having wrestled with them myself), so let's take this apart. For great justice; main screen turn on:
Solving Concurrent Request Problems
There are several possible problems and solutions with concurrent connections in a (L)AMP stack. Before looking at tuning Apache and MySQL, however, let me gloss a common "mystery" issue that creates concurrence problems; namely, a necessary evil called "PHP Session Locking".
PHP Session Blocking & Concurrent Requests
In a nutshell: When you use sessions in your application, after calling session_start(), PHP locks the session file stored at your session.save_path directory. This file lock will remain in place until the script ends, or session_write_close() is called. Result: Any subsequent calls by the same user will be queued, rather than concurrently processed, to ensure there's no session data corruption. (Imagine parallel scripts writing into the same $_SESSION!)
An easy way to demonstrate this is to create a long-running script; then call it in your browser; and then open a new tab, and call it again (or in fact, call any script sharing the same session cookie/ID). You'll see that the second call won't execute until the first one is concluded. This is a common cause of strange AJAX lags, especially with parallel AJAX requests from a single page. Processing will be consecutive instead of concurrent. Then, 10 calls at 0.3 sec each will take a total of 3 sec to conclude, and so on. We don't want that, do we!
You can remedy request blocking caused by PHP session lock by ensuring that:
Scripts using sessions should call session_write_close() once done storing session data. The session lock will be immediately released.
Scripts that don't require sessions shouldn't start sessions to begin with.
Scripts that need to only read session data: Using session_start() with ['read_and_close' => true] option will give you a read-only (non-persistent) $_SESSION variable without session locking. (Available since PHP 7.)
Options 1 and 3 will leave you with read access for the $_SESSION variable and release/avoid the session lock. Any changes made to $_SESSION after the session is closed will be silently discarded; no warnings/errors are displayed.
The session lock request blocking issue is only consequential for a single user (using the same session). It has no impact on multi-user concurrence. For further reading, please see:
SO: Session (Auto)-Start, Performance & Session Locking
SO: PHP & Sessions: Is there any way to disable PHP session locking?
In-Depth: PHP Session Locking: How To Prevent Sessions Blocking in PHP requests.
Apache & MySQL Concurrent Requests
Once upon a time, before realizing PHP was the culprit behind blocking/queuing my concurrent calls, I spent a small aeon in tweaking Apache and MySQL and wondering, what happen?
Apache 2.4 supports 150 concurrent requests by default; any further requests will queue up. There are several settings under the MPM/Multi-Processing Module that you can tune to support the desired level of concurrent connections. Please see:
MPM Docs
Worker Docs
Overview at Oxpedia
MySQL has options for max_connections (default 151) and max_user_connections (default unlimited). If your application sends a lot of concurrent requests per user, you'll want to ensure the global max connections is high enough to ensure a handful of users don't hog the entire DBMS.
Obviously, you'll further want to tune these settings in light of your server CPU/RAM specs. (The calculations for which are beyond this answer.) Your concurrency issues probably aren't caused by too many open TCP sockets, but hey, you never know...
Canceling Requests to Apache/PHP/MySQL
We don't have much to go on as far as your application's specific wiring, but I understand from the comments that as it stands, a user can cancel a request at the front-end, but no back-end action is taken. (Ie. any back-end response is simply ignored/discarded.)
"Is there a way to make Apache drop cancelled requests?" I'm assuming that your front-end sends the requests directly and without delay to Apache; and onward to PHP > MySQL > PHP > Apache. In that case, no, you can't really have Apache cancel the request that it's already received; or you could hit "stop", but chances are PHP and MySQL are already munching it away...
Holding a "Cancel Window"
However, you could program a "cancel window" lag into your front-end, where requests are only passed on to Apache after e.g. a 0.5-second sleep waiting for a possible cancel. This may or may not have a negative impact on the UX; may be worth implementing to save server resources if a significant portion of requests are canceled. This assumes an UI with Javascript. If you're getting direct HTTP calls to API, you could have a "sleepy proxy receiver" instead.
Using a "Cancel Controller"
How would one cancel PHP/MySQL processes? This is obviously only feasible/doable if calls to your API result in a processing time of any significant duration. If the back-end takes 0.28 sec to process, and user cancels after 0.3 seconds, then there isn't much left to cancel, is there.
However, if you do have scripts that may run for longer, say into a couple of seconds. You could always find relevant break-points in your code, where you have a "not-canceled" check or a kill/rollback routine. Basically, you'd have the following flow:
Front-end sends request with unique ID to main script
PHP script begins the long march for building a response
On cancel: Front-end re-sends the ID to a light-weight cancel controller
Cancel controller logs ID to temporary file/database/wherever
PHP checks at break-points if there's a cancel request for current process
On cancel, PHP executes a kill/rollback routine instead of further processing
This sort of "cancel watch" will obviously create some overhead, and as such you may want to only incorporate this into heavier scripts, to ensure you actually save some processing time in the big picture. Further, you'd only want at most a couple of breakpoints at significant junctions. For read requests, you could just kill the process; but for write requests, you'd probably want to have a graceful rollback to ensure data integrity in your system.
You can also cancel/kill a long-running MySQL thread, already initiated by PHP, with mysqli::kill. For this to make sense, you'd want to run it as MYSQLI_ASYNC, so PHP's around to pull the plug. PDO doesn't seem to have a native equivalent for either async queries or kill. Came across $pdo->query('KILL CONNECTION_ID()'); and PHP Asynchronous MySQL Query (see answer for PDO). Haven't tested these myself. Also see: Kill MySQL query on user abort
PHP Connection Handling
As an alternative to a controller that passes the cancel signal "from the side", you could look into PHP Connection Handling and poll for aborted connection status at your cancel check-points with connection_aborted(). (See "MySQL kill" link above for a code example.)
A CONNECTION_ABORTED state follows if a user clicks the "stop" button in their browser. PHP has a ignore_user_abort() setting, default "Off", which should abort a script on user-abort. (In my experience though, if I have a rogue script and session lock is on, I can't do anything until it times out, even when I hit "stop" in the browser. Go figure.)
If you have "ignore user abort" on false, ie. the PHP script terminates on user abort, be aware that this will be a wholly uncontrolled termination, unless you have register_shutdown_function() implemented. Even so, you'd have to flag check-points in your code for your shutdown function to be able to "rewind the clock" from the termination point onward. Also note this caveat:
PHP will not detect that the user has aborted the connection until an attempt is made to send information to the client. Simply using an echo statement does not guarantee that information is sent, see flush(). ~ PHP Manual on ignore_user_abort
I have no experience with implementing "user abort" over AJAX/JS. For a starting point, see: Abort AJAX Request and Cancel an HTTP fetch() request. Not sure how/if they register with PHP. If you decide to travel down this road, please return and update us with your code / research!
I have php-fpm & nginx stack installed on my server.
I'm running a JS app which fires an AJAX request that internally connects to a third party service using curl. This service takes a long time to respond say approximately 150s.
Now, When i connect to the same page on another browser tab, it doesn't even return the javascript code on the page which triggers the ajax requests. Basically all subsequent requests keep loading until either the curl returns response or it timeouts.
Here, i have proxy_read_timeout set to 300 seconds.
I want to know why nginx is holding the resource and not serving other clients.
The issue was due to the PHP session lock. When i used to make a certain request, PHP used to lock the session file and would release only after the request was completed.
To avoid this, you may use session_write_close(). In my case, I implemented redis session.
Problem solved!!!
If I have a PHP page that is doing a task that takes a long time, and I try to load another page from the same site at the same time, that page won't load until the first page has timed out. For instance if my timeout was set to 60 seconds, then I wouldn't be able to load any other page until 60 seconds after the page that was taking a long time to load/timeout. As far as I know this is expected behaviour.
What I am trying to figure out is whether an erroneous/long loading PHP script that creates the above situation would also affect other people on the same network. I personally thought it was a browser issues (i.e. if I loaded http://somesite.com/myscript.php in chrome and it start working it's magic in the background, I couldn't then load http://somesite.com/myscript2.php until that had timed out, but I could load that page in Firefox). However, I've heard contradictory statements, saying that the timeout would happen to everyone on the same network (IP address?).
My script works on some data imported from sage and takes quite a long time to run - sometiems it can timeout before it finishes (i.e. if the sage import crashes over the weeked), so I run it again and it picks up where it left off. I am worried that other staff in the office will not be able to access the site while this is running.
The problem you have here is actually related to the fact that (I'm guessing) you are using sessions. This may be a bit of a stretch, but it would account for exactly what you describe.
This is not in fact "expected behaviour" unless your web server is set up to run a single process with a single thread, which I highly doubt. This would create a situation where the web server is only able to handle a single request at any one time, and this would affect everybody on the network. This is exactly why your web server probably won't be set up like this - in fact I suspect you will find it is impossible to configure your server like this, as it would make the server somewhat useless. And before some smart alec chimes in with "what about Node.js?" - that is a special case, as I am sure you are already well aware.
When a PHP script has a session open, it has an exclusive lock on the file in which the session data is stored. This means that any subsequent request will block at the call to session_start() while PHP tries to acquire that exclusive lock on the session data file - which it can't, because your previous request still has one. As soon as your previous request finishes, it releases it's lock on the file and the next request is able to complete. Since sessions are per-machine (in fact per-browsing session, as the name suggests, which is why it works in a different browser) this will not affect other users of your network, but leaving your site set up so that this is an issue even just for you is bad practice and easily avoidable.
The solution to this is to call session_write_close() as soon as you have finished with the session data in a given script. This causes the script to close the session file and release it's lock. You should try and either finish with the session data before you start the long running process, or not call session_start() until after it has completed.
In theory you can call session_write_close() and then call session_start() again later in the script, but I have found that PHP sometimes exhibits buggy behaviour in this respect (I think this is cookie related, but don't quote me on that). Obviously, pay attention to the fact the setting cookies modifies the headers, so you have to call session_start() before you output any data or enable output buffering.
For example, consider this script:
<?php
session_start();
if (!isset($_SESSION['someval'])) {
$_SESSION['someval'] = 1;
} else {
$_SESSION['someval']++;
}
echo "someval is {$_SESSION['someval']}";
sleep(10);
With the above script, you will have to wait 10 seconds before you are able to make a second request. However, if you add a call to session_write_close() after the echo line, you will be able to make another request before the previous request has completed.
Hmm... I did not check but I think that each request to the webserver is handled in a thread of its own. Thereby a different request should not be blocked. Just try :-) Use a different browser and access your page while the big script is running!
Err.. I just see that this worked for you :-) And it should for others, too.
So a friend and I are building a web based, AJAX chat software with a jQuery and PHP core. Up to now, we've been using the standard procedure of calling the sever every two seconds or so looking for updates. However I've come to dislike this method as it's not fast, nor is it "cost effective" in that there are tons of requests going back and forth from the server, even if no data is returned.
One of our project supporters recommended we look into a technique known as COMET, or more specifically, Long Polling. However after reading about it in different articles and blog posts, I've found that it isn't all that practical when used with Apache servers. It seems that most people just say "It isn't a good idea", but don't give much in the way of specifics in the way of how many requests can Apache handle at one time.
The whole purpose of PureChat is to provide people with a chat that looks great, goes fast, and works on most servers. As such, I'm assuming that about 96% of our users will being using Apache, and not Lighttpd or Nginx, which are supposedly more suited for long polling.
Getting to the Point:
In your opinion, is it better to continue using setInterval and repeatedly request new data? Or is it better to go with Long Polling, despite the fact that most users will be using Apache? Also, it possible to get a more specific rundown on approximately how many people can be using the chat before an Apache server rolls over and dies?
As Andrew stated, a socket connection is the ultimate solution for asynchronous communication with a server, although only the most cutting edge browsers support WebSockets at this point. socket.io is an open source API you can use which will initiate a WebSocket connection if the browser supports it, but will fall back to a Flash alternative if the browser does not support it. This would be transparent to the coder using the API however.
Socket connections basically keep open communication between the browser and the server so that each can send messages to each other at any time. The socket server daemon would keep a list of connected subscribers, and when it receives a message from one of the subscribers, it can immediately send this message back out to all of the subscribers.
For socket connections however, you need a socket server daemon running full time on your server. While this can be done with command line PHP (no Apache needed), it is better suited for something like node.js, a non-blocking server-side JavaScript api.
node.js would also be better for what you are talking about, long polling. Basically node.js is event driven and single threaded. This means you can keep many connections open without having to open as many threads, which would eat up tons of memory (Apaches problem). This allows for high availability. What you have to keep in mind however is that even if you were using a non-blocking file server like Nginx, PHP has many blocking network calls. Since It is running on a single thread, each (for instance) MySQL call would basically halt the server until a response for that MySQL call is returned. Nothing else would get done while this is happening, making your non-blocking server useless. If however you used a non-blocking language like JavaScript (node.js) for your network calls, this would not be an issue. Instead of waiting for a response from MySQL, it would set a handler function to handle the response whenever it becomes available, allowing the server to handle other requests while it is waiting.
For long polling, you would basically send a request, the server would wait 50 seconds before responding. It will respond sooner than 50 seconds if it has anything to report, otherwise it waits. If there is nothing to report after 50 seconds, it sends a response anyways so that the browser does not time out. The response would trigger the browser to send another request, and the process starts over again. This allows for fewer requests and snappier responses, but again, not as good as a socket connection.