Re:Back to basics: Why we chose long-polling over websockets
by Muromec on Sunday January 05, 2025 @06:01PM
(#42605812)
If only there was a way to send messages from one host to another in elixir
Re:Back to basics: Why we chose long-polling over websockets
by wutwutwat on Sunday January 05, 2025 @06:42PM
(#42606057)
Did you even read my comment? I literally talk about how to do that, in multiple different ways.
Re:Back to basics: Why we chose long-polling over websockets
by abrookewood on Sunday January 05, 2025 @09:24PM
(#42606971)
Were the servers part of an Elixir cluster? Because that functionality should be transparent. It sounds to me like you had them set up as two independent nodes that were not aware of each other.
Re:Back to basics: Why we chose long-polling over websockets
by conradfr on Sunday January 05, 2025 @06:25PM
(#42605955)
Did you try the Redis adapter that ships with Phoenix.PubSub (which Channels use)?
Re:Back to basics: Why we chose long-polling over websockets
by wutwutwat on Sunday January 05, 2025 @06:42PM
(#42606055)
Yes, and I mentioned redis above. You need a message broker with 2+ servers, be it pg, redis, or distributed erlang. It's still more complex than a single server setup, which was my point. It's easy to say you don't have to think about things working when you have 1 server, it's not easy to say that past 1 server, because the complexity added changes that picture.
Re:Back to basics: Why we chose long-polling over websockets
by davydog187 on Sunday January 05, 2025 @09:19PM
(#42606936)
Ok but in literally any other language you minimally need this setup to do PubSub.
Elixir gives more options and lets you do it natively.
Also, there are simpler options for clustering out there like https://github.com/phoenixframework/dns_cluster (Disclaimer: I am a contributor)
Re:Back to basics: Why we chose long-polling over websockets
by conradfr on Monday January 06, 2025 @05:52AM
(#42609509)
Ok it was not clear if you used Redis directly with some custom code or the integrated stuff.
Anyway I agree that once you go with more than one server it's a whole new world but not sure if it's easier in any other language.
I was on the platform/devops/man w/ many hats team for an elixir shop running Phoenix in k8s. WS get complicated even in elxir when you have 2+ app instances behind a round robin load balancer. You now need to share broadcasts between app servers. Here's a situation you have to solve for w/ any app at scale regardless of language
app server #1 needs to send a publish/broadcast message out to a user, but the user who needs that message isn't connected to app server #1 that generated the message, that user is currently connected to app server #2.
How do you get a message from one app server to the other one which has the user's ws connection?
A bad option is sticky connections. User #1 always connects to server #1. Server #1 only does work for users connected to it directly. Why is this bad? Hot spots. Overloaded servers. Underutilized servers. Scaling complications. Forecasting problems. Goes against the whole concept of horizontal scaling and load balancing. It doesn't handle side-effect messages, ie user #1000 takes some action which needs to broadcast a message to user #1 which is connected to who knows where.
The better option: You need to broadcast to a shared broker. Something all app servers share a connection to so they can themselves subscribe to messages they should handle, and then pass it to the user's ws connection. This is a message broker. postgres can be that broker, just look at oban for real world proof. Throw in pg's listen/notify and you're off to the races. But that's heavy from a resources per db conn perspective so lets avoid the acid db for this then. Ok. Redis is a good option, or since this is elixir land, use the built in distributed erlang stuff. But, we're not running raw elixir releases on linux, we're running inside of containers, on top of k8s. The whole distributed erlang concept goes to shit once the erlang procs are isoltated from each other and not in their perfect golilocks getting started readme world. So ok, in containers in k8s, so each app server needs to know about all the other app servers running, so how do you do that? Hmm, service discovery! Ok, well, k8s has service discovery already, so how do I tell the erlang vm about the other nodes that I got from k8s etcd? Ah, a hex package cool. lib_cluster to the rescue https://github.com/bitwalker/libcluster
So we'll now tie the boot process of our entire app to fetching the other app server pod ips from k8s service discovery, then get a ring of distrubuted erlang nodes talking to each other, sharing message passing between them, this way no matter which server the lb routes the user to, a broadcast from any one of them will be seen by all of them, and the one who holds the ws connection will then forward it down the ws to the user.
So now there's a non trivial amount of complexity and risk that was added here. More to reason about when debugging. More to consider when working on features. More to understand when scaling, deploying, etc. More things to potentially take the service down or cause it not to boot. More things to have race conditions, etc.
Nothing is ever so easy you don't have to think about it.