hundreds of polling requests

<baris>

@TheBronx Yes you should use the ip_hash; directive and redirect the clients to the same nodebb instance based on IP.

julian

@baris This would help if you only had one NodeBB process per ip, but I think if you had multiple, then each process uses its own in-memory space for socket.io handshaking, right?

Seems this is the problem.

julian

The solution for this problem (in addition to using ip_hash, that is) as suggested online seems to be to use the sticky-sessions module, although NodeBB actually doesn't use the cluster module, so this is not an applicable solution unless we rewrite the load balancing code in loader.js to use Node.js' cluster module again.

KingCat

@TheBronx Have you tried setting up a page rule to disable acceleration, caching, and apps? That way you can still use the WAF and be hidden behind the CloudFlare IP but maybe web sockets will work better...

exodo

That wont work as cf dont dupport websocket on lower plans, no matjer if you disable catching, etc

@julian just tried websockets with a second server with another nodebb instance and the socket.io from the main server with cloudfare refering that second ip.
It works but it doesnt let to login or post.
How do you share "cookies" or logged in status between that 2 node instances?

julian

After discussion with @baris, I was mistaken about NodeBB's role with cluster management.

We rely purely on nginx (or apache) to forward the incoming requests to the correct NodeBB instance. If NodeBB is set up to listen to two ports, it will start two instances, but will not do any routing.

So, @TheBronx @KingCat @zack, you'll have to set up your environment as follows:

Domain Name -> CloudFlare -> Nginx -> NodeBB x2 (assuming ports 4567 and 4568).

Nginx will need to proxy to the upstream IP (even if it is the same machine), so you'll need to use an upstream block like so:

upstream io_nodes {
    ip_hash;
    server 127.0.0.1:4567;
    server 127.0.0.1:4568;
}

The ip_hash; part is important, so incoming IP addresses are sent to the same server during handshaking.

Long polling should work fine then.

exodo

@julian said:

After discussion with @baris, I was mistaken about NodeBB's role with cluster management.

We rely purely on nginx (or apache) to forward the incoming requests to the correct NodeBB instance. If NodeBB is set up to listen to two ports, it will start two instances, but will not do any routing.

So, @TheBronx @KingCat @zack, you'll have to set up your environment as follows:

Domain Name -> CloudFlare -> Nginx -> NodeBB x2 (assuming ports 4567 and 4568).

Nginx will need to proxy to the upstream IP (even if it is the same machine), so you'll need to use an upstream block like so:
upstream io_nodes {
    ip_hash;
    server 127.0.0.1:4567;
    server 127.0.0.1:4568;
}
The ip_hash; part is important, so incoming IP addresses are sent to the same server during handshaking.

Long polling should work fine then.

not sure how to do this
how you run 2 instances of node with same domain?

pichalite

@zack https://docs.nodebb.org/en/latest/scaling/index.html

exodo

@julian our config is exact the one you told us on last post. We have it that way from the begining so that wont solve the problem

exodo

@julian said:

After discussion with @baris, I was mistaken about NodeBB's role with cluster management.

We rely purely on nginx (or apache) to forward the incoming requests to the correct NodeBB instance. If NodeBB is set up to listen to two ports, it will start two instances, but will not do any routing.

So, @TheBronx @KingCat @zack, you'll have to set up your environment as follows:

Domain Name -> CloudFlare -> Nginx -> NodeBB x2 (assuming ports 4567 and 4568).

Nginx will need to proxy to the upstream IP (even if it is the same machine), so you'll need to use an upstream block like so:
upstream io_nodes {
    ip_hash;
    server 127.0.0.1:4567;
    server 127.0.0.1:4568;
}
The ip_hash; part is important, so incoming IP addresses are sent to the same server during handshaking.

Long polling should work fine then.

i can confirm the hundreds of polling request its not a ws issue
tried it with this info

   "socket.io": {
        "transports" : ["polling"]
   }

so it only uses polling
i put only one port so will run one instance and will be ok, no error on console

but if you put several posts

"port": ["4567", "4568", "4569", "4570"],

with proxy on nginx

server {
        listen 80;

        server_name yournodebb.com;

        location / {
            proxy_set_header X-Real-IP $remote_addr;
            proxy_set_header X-Forwarded-For $proxy_add_x_forwarded_for;
            proxy_set_header Host $http_host;
            proxy_set_header X-NginX-Proxy true;

            proxy_pass http://io_nodes;
            proxy_redirect off;

            # Socket.IO Support
            proxy_http_version 1.1;
            proxy_set_header Upgrade $http_upgrade;
            proxy_set_header Connection "upgrade";
        }
    }
    
    upstream io_nodes {
        ip_hash;
        server 127.0.0.1:4567;
        server 127.0.0.1:4568;
        server 127.0.0.1:4569;
        server 127.0.0.1:4570;
    }

then you will get many request x second , notice domain isn't ws.exo.do and its only exo.do cause it's not running with web sockets.

Captura de pantalla 2015-05-07 a las 17.33.39.png

julian

@zack Thanks for giving it a try Odd why the ip_hash directive isn't doing what it's supposed to. What nginx version are you running?

Are you using CloudFlare as well? You'll need to translate those IPs properly, as when going through CF, the requesting IP is actually one from CF's network, not the end user.

exodo

@julian said:

@zack Thanks for giving it a try Odd why the ip_hash directive isn't doing what it's supposed to. What nginx version are you running?

Are you using CloudFlare as well? You'll need to translate those IPs properly, as when going through CF, the requesting IP is actually one from CF's network, not the end user.

nginx/1.1.19 + Cloudfare

pichalite

@zack NodeBB documentation states minimum nginx version as v1.3.13. May be upgrading nginx will solve the issue?

404 Not Found

(docs.nodebb.org)

exodo

@pichalite said:

@zack NodeBB documentation states minimum nginx version as v1.3.13. May be upgrading nginx will solve the issue?

404 Not Found

(docs.nodebb.org)

worths a try

exodo

updated to nginx 1.8. and problem persist
notice this is not a cloudfare problem, browsing directly with server ip will end with same error if you put more than 1 port on node config , even with 1 port i´m getting 1 error 400 each minute.
if you click on one of them you get this
{"code":1,"message":"Session ID unknown"}

KingCat

Have you tried using nginx to serve the static assets? That's what fixed it for me: https://community.nodebb.org/topic/4146/socket-io-bad-requests-on-nodebb-0-6-1/12

markkus

@zack said:

updated to nginx 1.8. and problem persist
notice this is not a cloudfare problem, browsing directly with server ip will end with same error if you put more than 1 port on node config , even with 1 port i´m getting 1 error 400 each minute.
if you click on one of them you get this
{"code":1,"message":"Session ID unknown"}

I have exactly the same situation.

Edit: I changed config.json a little bit.

"socket.io": {
    "transports" : ["websocket"]
}

This seems to solve the polling errors in console (quite obvious lol), but the "lost connection to forum" still keeps appearing on the navbar every minute or so.

TheBronx

maybe we should ask the socket.io guys, it is really weird.
CloudFlare is clearly not the problem, as we have tried without it.
Nginx with ip_hash is not making any difference.

What's the problem then? has anyone ever configured NodeBB with 2 or more instances restricted to "transport":["polling"]? is it working without throwing tons of requests?

TheBronx

this sounds familiar to me: https://github.com/Automattic/socket.io/issues/2091
this other one might be related too: https://github.com/Automattic/socket.io/issues/1831

I'm going to create a simple test scenario, without nodebb, just socket.io and see if I can reproduce the error and open an issue.

julian

@TheBronx Please do.

We use two processes here, and use nginx with ip_hash; to go between each process, though we don't use polling exclusively.