C:>vmc stats smile
DL is deprecated, please use Fiddle
Getting stats for smile... OK
instance cpu memory disk
0 0.5% 198.2K of 1G 54.6M of 2G
The 404 is coming from Tomcat which means connections are being forwarded correctly. Looking at the location the 404 is coming from;
/WEB-INF/views/WEB-INF/views/home.jsp.jsp
one can only assume there is something suspect with the way requests are being routed with in the application itself.
Related
I deployed 2 instances of Eureka server and a total of 12 instances microservices. .
Renews (last min) is as expected 24. But Renew Threshold is always 0. Is this how it supposed to be when self preservation is turned on? Also seeing this error - THE SELF PRESERVATION MODE IS TURNED OFF. THIS MAY NOT PROTECT INSTANCE EXPIRY IN CASE OF NETWORK/OTHER PROBLEMS. What's the expected behavior in this case and how to resolve this if this is a problem?
As mentioned above, I deployed 2 instances of Eureka Server but after running for a while like around 19-20 hours, one instance of Eureka Server always goes down. Why that could be possibly happening? I checked the processes running using top command and found that Eureka Server is taking a lot of memory. What needs to be configured on Eureka Server so that it don't take a lot of memory?
Below is the configuration in the application.properties file of Eureka Server:
spring.application.name=eureka-server
eureka.instance.appname=eureka-server
eureka.instance.instance-id=${spring.application.name}:${spring.application.instance_id:${random.int[1,999999]}}
eureka.server.enable-self-preservation=false
eureka.datacenter=AWS
eureka.environment=STAGE
eureka.client.registerWithEureka=false
eureka.client.fetchRegistry=false
Below is the command that I am using to start the Eureka Server instances.
#!/bin/bash
java -Xms128m -Xmx256m -Xss256k -XX:+HeapDumpOnOutOfMemoryError -Dspring.profiles.active=stage -Dserver.port=9011 -Deureka.instance.prefer-ip-address=true -Deureka.instance.hostname=example.co.za -Deureka.client.serviceUrl.defaultZone=http://example.co.za:9012/eureka/ -jar eureka-server-1.0.jar &
java -Xms128m -Xmx256m -Xss256k -XX:+HeapDumpOnOutOfMemoryError -Dspring.profiles.active=stage -Dserver.port=9012 -Deureka.instance.prefer-ip-address=true -Deureka.instance.hostname=example.co.za -Deureka.client.serviceUrl.defaultZone=http://example.co.za:9011/eureka/ -jar eureka-server-1.0.jar &
Is this approach to create multiple instances of Eureka Server correct?
Deployment is on AWS. Is there any specific configuration needed for Eureka Server on AWS?
Spring Boot version: 2.3.4.RELEASE
I am new to all these, any help or direction will be a great help.
Let me try to answer your question one by one.
Renews (last min) is as expected 24. But Renew Threshold is always 0. Is this how it supposed to be when self-preservation is turned on?
What's the expected behaviour in this case and how to resolve this if this is a problem?
I can see that eureka.server.enable-self-preservation=false in your configuration, This is really needed if you want to remove an already registered application as soon as it fails to renew its lease.
Self-preservation feature is to prevent the above-mentioned situation since it can happen if there are some network hiccups. Say, you have two services A and B, both are registered to eureka and suddenly, B failed to renew its lease because of a temporary network hiccup. If Self-preservation is not there then B will be removed from the registry and A won't be able to reach B despite B is available.
So we can say that Self-preservation is a resiliency feature of eureka.
Renews threshold is the expected renews per minute, Eureka server enters self-preservation mode if the actual number of heartbeats in last minute(Renews) is less than the expected number of renews per minute(Renew Threshold) and
Of course, you can control the Renews threshold. you can configure renewal-percent-threshold (by default it is 0.85)
So in your case,
Total number of application instances = 12
You don't have eureka.instance.leaseRenewalIntervalInSeconds so default value 30s
and eureka.client.registerWithEureka=false
so Renewals(last minute) will be 24
You don't have renewal-percent-threshold configured, so the default value is 0.85
Number of renewals per application instance per minute = 2 (30s each)
so in case of self-preservation is enable Renews threshold will be calculated as 2 * 12 * 0.85 = 21 (rounded)
And in your case self-preservation is turned off, so Eureka won't calculate Renews Threshold
One instance of Eureka Server always goes down. Why that could be possibly happening?
I'm not able to answer this question time being, this can be because of multiple reasons.
You can find the reason mostly from logs, or if you can post logs here it would be great.
What needs to be configured on Eureka Server so that it doesn't take a lot of memory?
From the information that you have provided, I cannot tell about your memory issue and in addition to that you already specified -Xmx256m and I didn't face any memory issues with the eureka servers so far.
But I can say that top is not the right tool for checking the memory consumed by your java process. When JVM starts, It takes some memory from the operating system.
This is the amount of memory you see in tools like ps and top. so better use jstat or jvmtop
Is this approach to create multiple instances of Eureka Server correct?
It seems you are having the same hostname(eureka.instance.hostname) for both instances. Replication won't work if you use the same hostname.
And make sure that you have the same application names in both instances.
Deployment is on AWS. Is there any specific configuration needed for Eureka Server on AWS?
Nothing specifically for AWS as per my knowledge, other than making sure that the instances can communicate with each other.
I deployed a sample HelloWorld app on Google Cloud Run, which is basically k-native, and every call to the API takes 1.4 seconds at best, in an end-to-end manner. Is it supposed to be so?
The sample app is at https://cloud.google.com/run/docs/quickstarts/build-and-deploy
I deployed the very same app on my localhost as a docker container and it takes about 22ms, end-to-end.
The same app on my GKE cluster takes about 150 ms, end-to-end.
import os
from flask import Flask
app = Flask(__name__)
#app.route('/')
def hello_world():
target = os.environ.get('TARGET', 'World')
return 'Hello {}!\n'.format(target)
if __name__ == "__main__":
app.run(debug=True,host='0.0.0.0',port=int(os.environ.get('PORT', 8080)))
I am a little experience in FaaS and I expect API calls would get faster as I invoked them in a row. (as in cold start vs. warm start)
But no matter how many times I execute the command it doesn't go below 1.4 seconds.
I think the network distance isn't the dominant factor here. The round-trip time via ping to the API endpoint is only 50ms away, more or less
So my questions are as follows:
Is it potentially an unintended bug? Is it a technical difficulty which will be resolved eventually? Or maybe nothing's wrong, it's just the SLA of k-native?
If nothing's wrong with Google Cloud Run and/or k-native, what is the dominant time-consuming factor here for my API call? I'd love to learn the mechanism.
Additional Details:
Where I am located at: Seoul/Asia
The region for my Cloud Run app: us-central1
type of Internet connection I am testing under: Business, Wired
app's container image size: 343.3MB
the bucket location that Container Registry is using: gcr.io
WebPageTest from Seoul/Asia (warmup time):
Content Type: text/html
Request Start: 0.44 s
DNS Lookup: 249 ms
Initial Connection: 59 ms
SSL Negotiation: 106 ms
Time to First Byte: 961 ms
Content Download: 2 ms
WebPageTest from Chicago/US (warmup time):
Content Type: text/html
Request Start: 0.171 s
DNS Lookup: 41 ms
Initial Connection: 29 ms
SSL Negotiation: 57 ms
Time to First Byte: 61 ms
Content Download: 3 ms
ANSWER by Steren, the Cloud Run product manager
We have detected high latency when calling Cloud Run services from
some particular regions in the world. Sadly, Seoul seems to be one of
them.
[Update: This person has a networking problem in his area. I tested his endpoint from Seattle with no problems. Details in the comments below.]
I have worked with Cloud Run constantly for the past several months. I have deployed several production applications and dozens of test services. I am in Seattle, Cloud Run is in us-central1. I have never noticed a delay. Actually, I am impressed with how fast a container starts up.
For one of my services, I am seeing cold start time to first byte of 485ms. Next invocation 266ms, 360ms. My container is checking SSL certificates (2) on the Internet. The response time is very good.
For another service which is a PHP website, time to first byte on cold start is 312ms, then 94ms, 112ms.
What could be factors that are different for you?
How large is your container image? Check Container Registry for the size. My containers are under 100 MB. The larger the container the longer the cold start time.
Where is the bucket located that Container Registry is using? You want the bucket to be in us-central1 or at least US. This will change soon with when new Cloud Run regions are announced.
What type of Internet connection are you testing under? Home based or Business. Wireless or Ethernet connection? Where in the world are you testing from? Launch a temporary Compute Engine instance, repeat your tests to Cloud Run and compare. This will remove your ISP from the equation.
Increase the memory allocated to the container. Does this affect performance? Python/Flask does not require much memory, my containers are typically 128 MB and 256 MB. Container images are loaded into memory, so if you have a bloated container, you might now have enough memory left reducing performance.
What does Stackdriver logs show you? You can see container starts, requests, and container terminations.
(Cloud Run product manager here)
We have detected high latency when calling Cloud Run services from some particular regions in the world. Sadly, Seoul seems to be one of them.
We will explicitly capture this as a Known issue and we are working on fixing this before General Availability. Feel free to open a new issue in our public issue tracker
I have a computer engine server in us-east1-b zone.
n1-highmem-4 (4 vCPUs, 26 GB memory) with 50 GB SSD and everything shows normal in monitoring graphs.
we are using this server as rails based RESTful API.
The problem is when we send a request to the server it takes very long time to receive the response.
Here is our server log:
as you can see it took 00:01 second to response to the request
and here is the response received by postman:
as you can see X-Runtime is 0.036319 as expected but we received the response in 50374 ms which means almost 1 min after server response!
I hope this answer can help people with same problem.
Passenger's highly optimized load balancer assumes that Ruby apps can handle 1 (or thread-limited amount of) concurrent connection(s). This is usually the case and results in optimal load-balancing. But endpoints that deal with SSE/Websockets can handle many more concurrent connections, so the assumption leads to degraded performance.
You can use the force max concurrent requests per process configuration option to override this. The example below shows how to set the concurrency to unlimited for /special_websocket_endpoint:
server {
listen 80;
server_name www.example.com;
root /webapps/my_app/public;
passenger_enabled on;
# Use default concurrency for the app. But for the endpoint
# /special_websocket_endpoint, force a different concurrency.
location /special_websocket_endpoint {
passenger_app_group_name foo_websocket;
passenger_force_max_concurrent_requests_per_process 0;
}
}
In Passenger 5.0.21 and below the option above was not available yet. In those versions there is a workaround for Ruby apps. Enter code below into config.ru to set the concurrency (on the entire app).
I've seen this asked here, here, and here - but without any good answers and was hoping to maybe get some closure on the issue.
I have an ELB connected to 6 instances all running Tomcat7. Up until Friday there were seemingly no issues at all. However, starting about five days ago we started getting around two 504 GATEWAY_TIMEOUT from the ELB per day. That's typically 2/2000 ~ .1%. I turned on logging and see
2018-06-27T12:56:08.110331Z momt-default-elb-prod 10.196.162.218:60132 - -1 -1 -1 504 0 140 0 "POST https://prod-elb.us-east-1.backend.net:443/mobile/user/v1.0/ HTTP/1.1" "BackendClass" ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 TLSv1.2
But my Tomcat7 logs don't have any 504s present at all, implying that the ELB is rejecting these requests without even communicating with the Tomcat.
I've seen people mention setting the Tomcats timeout to be greater than the ELB's timeout - but if that were what were happening (i.e. Tomcat times out and then ELB shuts down), then shouldn't I see a 504 in the Tomcat logs?
Similarly, nothing has changed in the code in a few months. So, this all just started seemingly out of nowhere, and is too uncommon to be a bigger issue. I checked to see if there were some pattern in the timeouts (i.e. tomcat restarting or same instance etc.) but couldn't find anything.
I know other people have run into this issue, but any and all help would be greatly appreciated.
What's the maximum length of an HTTP GET request?
Is there a response error defined that the server can/should return if it receives a GET request that exceeds this length?
This is in the context of a web service API, although it's interesting to see the browser limits as well.
The limit is dependent on both the server and the client used (and if applicable, also the proxy the server or the client is using).
Most web servers have a limit of 8192 bytes (8 KB), which is usually configurable somewhere in the server configuration. As to the client side matter, the HTTP 1.1 specification even warns about this. Here's an extract of chapter 3.2.1:
Note: Servers ought to be cautious about depending on URI lengths above 255 bytes, because some older client or proxy implementations might not properly support these lengths.
The limit in Internet Explorer and Safari is about 2 KB, in Opera about 4 KB and in Firefox about 8 KB. We may thus assume that 8 KB is the maximum possible length and that 2 KB is a more affordable length to rely on at the server side and that 255 bytes is the safest length to assume that the entire URL will come in.
If the limit is exceeded in either the browser or the server, most will just truncate the characters outside the limit without any warning. Some servers however may send an HTTP 414 error.
If you need to send large data, then better use POST instead of GET. Its limit is much higher, but more dependent on the server used than the client. Usually up to around 2 GB is allowed by the average web server.
This is also configurable somewhere in the server settings. The average server will display a server-specific error/exception when the POST limit is exceeded, usually as an HTTP 500 error.
You are asking two separate questions here:
What's the maximum length of an HTTP GET request?
As already mentioned, HTTP itself doesn't impose any hard-coded limit on request length; but browsers have limits ranging on the 2 KB - 8 KB (255 bytes if we count very old browsers).
Is there a response error defined that the server can/should return if it receives a GET request exceeds this length?
That's the one nobody has answered.
HTTP 1.1 defines status code 414 Request-URI Too Long for the cases where a server-defined limit is reached. You can see further details on RFC 2616.
For the case of client-defined limits, there isn't any sense on the server returning something, because the server won't receive the request at all.
Browser limits are:
Browser Address bar document.location
or anchor tag
---------------------------------------------------
Chrome 32779 >64k
Android 8192 >64k
Firefox >64k >64k
Safari >64k >64k
Internet Explorer 11 2047 5120
Edge 16 2047 10240
Want more? See this question on Stack Overflow.
A similar question is here: Is there a limit to the length of a GET request?
I've hit the limit and on my shared hosting account, but the browser returned a blank page before it got to the server I think.
Technically, I have seen HTTP GET will have issues if the URL length goes beyond 2000 characters. In that case, it's better to use HTTP POST or split the URL.
As already mentioned, HTTP itself doesn't impose any hard-coded limit on request length; but browsers have limits ranging on the 2048 character allowed in the GET method.
Yes. There isn't any limit on a GET request.
I am able to send ~4000 characters as part of the query string using both the Chrome browser and curl command.
I am using Tomcat 8.x server which has returned the expected 200 OK response.
Here is the screenshot of a Google Chrome HTTP request (hiding the endpoint I tried due to security reasons):
RESPONSE