Re: Workaround to browser maximum connection limit ?

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Paul DeBruicker <[email protected]>
wrote:

> As far as I know there isn't HTTP/2 support available in any of the
> Smalltalk
> HTTP clients but as the gems can only process one request at a time it
> shouldn't matter.  Do HTTP/2 to your nginx, then split those requests among
> your gems round robin.



Yeah, I did that and it worked! Not sure if it helped for this particular
case but using HTTP2 is worth nonetheless.
For the record, I followed this guide for CentOS 7:

https://medium.com/@karljohnson/nginx-more-get-http-2-with-alpn-pagespeed-modsecurity-and-much-more-in-one-single-package-7d28a44d1854#.n5d4viwek


>   Or I think if you pay for nginx you can choose which
> backend to send a request to based on its busy-ness.
>

Yes, I am already using that stragegy (see least_conn below)


upstream xxx
{
*least_conn;*
server localhost:40210;
server localhost:40211;
server localhost:40212;
server localhost:40213;
server localhost:40214;
server localhost:40215;
server localhost:40216;
server localhost:40217;
server localhost:40218;
server localhost:40219;
server localhost:40220;
}




>
>
>
>
>
> Mariano Martinez Peck wrote
> > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 10:11 PM, Paul DeBruicker &lt;
>
> > pdebruic@
>
> > &gt;
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Are you using HTTP/2 in your nginx config?
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP/2  It both multiplexes & pipelines
> >> requests so the browser's limits have less, if no effect.
> >>
> >>
> > Yes, this is very interesting idea. Do you have such a setup working with
> > Seaside and GemStone?
> > I am compiling now newer version of nginx with ALPN support and correct
> > version of SSL on CentOS7.
> > But I am not sure what else must be done to close the loop so that to be
> > sure HTTP2 is used everywhere.
> > Do I need to do something on the Seaside adaptors?
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Could also maybe adapt the functionality of the lazy-loading code that
> is
> >> sometimes used for images.  If the report isn't on the screen & hasn't
> >> been
> >> scrolled to do you really need it in the DOM?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Mariano Martinez Peck wrote
> >> > Hi guys,
> >> >
> >> > In my app I have one scenario where we render huge reports. These
> >> reports
> >> > could have say... 20/30 large tables as well as quite some charts and
> >> some
> >> > other report elements.
> >> >
> >> > Previously we were using a single ajax request to generate the whole
> >> > report
> >> > html but that was a pain because client machine would have a really
> >> large
> >> > TTFB. So I was wasting CPU and network at client machine while
> waiting.
> >> >
> >> > What we did now is that each report element renders a title + spinning
> >> > while and does an ajax request which, on success does a #replaceWith:
> >> > with
> >> > the real contents. The idea is to show the report as soon as possible
> >> and
> >> > start replacing spinning wheels with real contents as soon as content
> >> is
> >> > ready. That way I maximize CPU and network on client side.
> >> >
> >> > The second thing is that making this on AJAX calls, that would end up
> >> on
> >> > different Gems on my GemStone which was very performant. I have 10
> >> Seaside
> >> > gems on a 8 cores CPU so all those AJAX request were load balanced via
> >> > nginx over the 10 seaside gems, which on the other hand were split
> >> across
> >> > all cores. Previously, with a single request, only one Gem took care
> >> and
> >> > hence only one CPU core was used.
> >> >
> >> > This change was nice and improved performance. However, when I analyze
> >> > requests, I see that I have many that are "Stalled". And yeah, on
> >> Chrome,
> >> > they are all stalled when there is more than 6 requests to the same
> >> > location.
> >> >
> >> > To conclude, it looks like i am doing what is called "Loading page
> >> content
> >> > with many Ajax requests" [1]. But I still don't find an easy
> >> workaround.
> >> I
> >> > would like to be able to use my 10 Gems over the 8 CPU cores....
> >> >
> >> > Any idea?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks in advance,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > [1]
> >> > http://sgdev-blog.blogspot.com.ar/2014/01/maximum-
> >> concurrent-connection-to-same.html
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Mariano
> >> > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > seaside mailing list
> >>
> >> > [email protected]
> >>
> >> > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/
> >> Workaround-to-browser-maximum-connection-limit-tp4939444p4939450.html
> >> Sent from the Seaside General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> seaside mailing list
> >>
>
> > [email protected]
>
> >> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Mariano
> > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > seaside mailing list
>
> > [email protected]
>
> > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/
> Workaround-to-browser-maximum-connection-limit-tp4939444p4939510.html
> Sent from the Seaside General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> _______________________________________________
> seaside mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside
>



-- 
Mariano
http://marianopeck.wordpress.com

_______________________________________________
seaside mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside