1

Topic: Who used websocket? Terribly unreliable, errors through time

Adjustment - websocket + nginx https
On fast connections  , but on feeble any horror is created, constant breakaways and .
Who used them? How impressions?
P.S.
Pure websocket instead of clever wrappers of type socket.io - which actually not absolutely sockets and can switch on normal http.

2

Re: Who used websocket? Terribly unreliable, errors through time

wrote:

when the breakaway - is an error and it should be processed -

. Here with such haemoplenty
How to organize operation on a web socket?

3

Re: Who used websocket? Terribly unreliable, errors through time

wrote:

... Amongst the various proxy pariahs was my mobile phone network Telstra which basically let you have an open socket, but did not let any data through...

https://samsaffron.com/archive/2015/12/ … n-required
, old kind  and  it is better.

4

Re: Who used websocket? Terribly unreliable, errors through time

There it is necessary to create a difficult machinery both on the client and on the server that it is constant  and to kill sockets. Too difficult.

5

Re: Who used websocket? Terribly unreliable, errors through time

wrote:

strange to become,

give another where there are pluses and minuses

6

Re: Who used websocket? Terribly unreliable, errors through time

wrote:

and ajax loads

much more
You can prove?

7

Re: Who used websocket? Terribly unreliable, errors through time

More shortly it turns out :
- On good connections works perfectly.
- On the bad falls off, but, with  and reconnections works.
- But even with reconnections often enough . Sometimes it stupidly hangs up - the error, is not present anything, and messages are not present. And normal requests transit. Such impression that as is written in that article - as if the traffic somewhere is lost on road.
That dude about loading meant that in browsers there are built in restrictions on an Ajax which do not allow everyones  to load the server. And in web sockets is not present, and there to do all it is necessary very accurately.

8

Re: Who used websocket? Terribly unreliable, errors through time

wrote:

to me enough the practice of usage

To take on  - to deceive, , to fool the Dictionary of Russian synonyms

9

Re: Who used websocket? Terribly unreliable, errors through time

To bomb the server it is not necessary - opened  pull-adzhaks requests - and  their active so as a socket.

10

Re: Who used websocket? Terribly unreliable, errors through time

Is still long-pull when the server does not answer and holds connection.

11

Re: Who used websocket? Terribly unreliable, errors through time

wrote:

it is passed...
When you should have the information in real time and at you n +++
Clients, and  that can change during the casual moments - each of n +++ clients should bomb the server to requests about, whether that there is for it , such "empty" requests a heap. And the server should process them.
At ws anybody the server does not bomb, event happened - messages are delivered.
and it is confirmed by practice , people simply passed on ws and refused server purchase, their old server continued to smoke a bamboo easy. Having a decent store.

By whom it is confirmed? When? What people?  did not understand.

wrote:

and ajax loads much more.

Here it from what generally is taken? From a ceiling?

12

Re: Who used websocket? Terribly unreliable, errors through time

wrote:

I can just tell it real people, to which at me full confidence.

Well, iron argument:-D

wrote:

to obtain the data on ajax - it is necessary to send request and to have real time it is necessary to send requests of times in 1 as a maximum and if at you enough of clients - each of them has to send request in a second, but not the fact that on  the request comes the answer with the new data, i.e. "the empty" request turns out, and its server should process

In that case it is possible to hold websocket connection and to notify clients on arrival of the new data. If they are necessary to the client, it makes ajax-inquiry which , and also can be  on a proxy, http-inquiries are perfectly scaled.

13

Re: Who used websocket? Terribly unreliable, errors through time

wrote:

certainly it is possible, and it is possible to send simply on ws the data, and any ajax. In what a difference between sending of the message on presence of the data and transmission of the data? Absolutely there is no difference, so what for also ajax?

Difference in that a little ajax requests can process some different servers that allows to balance and cope with minimum expenses with the big loadings. Besides, http contains the developed protocol of an exchange having a large quantity of possibilities which ALL UNDERSTAND, and over a web socket anybody does not understand your defective "protocol". Hence, I should expend a large quantity of efforts that I can receive free of charge and right now. And it will work everywhere, even on a teapot.
I.e. on everything, all speaks completely about reverse here to this statement:

wrote:

and ajax loads much more.

And your faith in people any there, is to hens on laughter, instead of arguments.

14

Re: Who used websocket? Terribly unreliable, errors through time

hVostt wrote:

i.e. on everything, all speaks completely about reverse here to this statement:
it is passed...

so you changed conditions.
At  one server with clients who can be enumerated on fingers, and this hogwash will never be scaled. And it compares pure aja, permanently hollowing server, with pure ws in which hollows the server only if it is necessary. In such and only in such conditions pure ws is the winner and will "load" it is less that behind this word would not hide, the traffic or server loading.
And you speak about  to system with the amount of users beginning with numbers from four signs.
If one client makes request about your server receives the answer for 3 (conditionally). If on  - 2
If one thousand clients makes request about your server receives the same 3 and if on  it runs into a stupor and more of it does not fall out.

15

Re: Who used websocket? Terribly unreliable, errors through time

;
You are better stability of the channel be engaged. Instead of .

16

Re: Who used websocket? Terribly unreliable, errors through time

Antonariy wrote:

at  one server with clients who can be enumerated on fingers

Judging by that he now for itself(himself) writes can and there are no clients, and all its reasonings is a pure fiction.

17

Re: Who used websocket? Terribly unreliable, errors through time

wrote:

and you except  see nothing for ws?

I select the vacuum cleaner from shop on 10 parameters.
You on one. We different)).

18

Re: Who used websocket? Terribly unreliable, errors through time

wrote:

it is passed...
And judging by that that you state at you there are no standing arguments, you if only  to be abandoned.

All of us already here were convinced and time and again that you are not capable to perceive arguments. So what for to me to waste time for nothing?
It already so it has been much spent.
P.S.: and I all came out with the assumption. And judging by your response, it to a campaign the true.

19

Re: Who used websocket? Terribly unreliable, errors through time

wrote:

it is passed...
You confuse all. To the server on ws connection and all becomes (if to consider a real-time mode) if there will be 1000 clients there will be 1000 connections. And the server will sleep, there will be no yet an event. At ajax the server will not sleep, it will process requests from 1000 clients. 1000*3=3, even if  it all the same a server permanent job. I.e. the server had not time to process one cycle of calls as the following already began.
At ws mailing on one client will be not 3, and much less, is simple because it is not necessary to process entering it is not present, already there is a connection., on which there is an answer.
To sort out list from 1000 it less 3.

I confuse nothing and I tell exactly same, as you, but not to you and using other words and lowering some details which all are obvious but which you suck round as much as possible explicitly.
You are simply insufficiently formed to understand the words which are distinct from what you use itself, or placed in other order. Also it is too obstinate, that it to recognize open and to be engaged in formation, and it is possible also it is too blunt to admit it to itself.

20

Re: Who used websocket? Terribly unreliable, errors through time

wrote:

at ws it is required already at much  number of clients.

pure fiction

21

Re: Who used websocket? Terribly unreliable, errors through time

wrote:

it is passed...
It you too obstinately cling to old technologies, you are not capable to pass it to the new.

"the fool".
It is fresh!
It not I cling to backward technologies, and they for me, I cling to data domain. I rewrite a huge heap  similar to yours, I lift it from an over bottom on such minimum level which allows to conduct joint development by experts of a different profile which allows to arrange duties. The development based on spread and all known tools. Yes, the sheaf xml/xsl/xsd became outdated, but it is the alphabet, clear  parts of experts and easily acquired remaining part.
And net core I already at the very least mastered the modern technologies of type, and just under this platform I drag .

22

Re: Who used websocket? Terribly unreliable, errors through time

wrote:

it is passed...
It you too obstinately cling to old technologies, you are not capable to pass it to the new.

The monkey who is digging out a pole by a microscope told smile))

23

Re: Who used websocket? Terribly unreliable, errors through time

wrote:

it is passed...
I to you resulted the code for data casting to the clients signed on this data.
You did not understand it? And to try to understand? Tried?
Now present the code which it is required for this purpose that this data was received by clients at usage ajax? These are servlets of that stand.
You want to use ajax - a flag in hands.
But if you are not able to use it - it is not necessary to abuse.

and I unless abused? On the contrary, I supported you, showed to a tail an incorrectness of its claims in the given specific case with what he even did not begin to argue as he perfectly understood me, and I explained why you in the situation watch that pattern which you describe, instead of any other as you it to make not in a state.
But you even was not able to distinguish support from , it something.
Well and your representations about those situations in which you did not happen till now, extrapolation on them the  experience, it, of course, , a burning loss and , here at you are full "right" of the ignoramus to shout "the fool".

24

Re: Who used websocket? Terribly unreliable, errors through time

25

Re: Who used websocket? Terribly unreliable, errors through time

wrote:

looking what server. 64 arranges? (It at all is a lot of)
You want to tell that on one connection much ?
No more 10.
10 000 * = 600 it is a lot of 60 000 connections? If to compare with 64 ?

If everything that does this server, it on a web socket to send notification messages that the data changed, that clients did the ajax-inquiries quite arranges. Well and the elementary .

wrote:

that you will be ?
If the information for the client is not present - the server does not work.

If the server does not work, information for the client never will be.

wrote:

at ajax the client should request permanently.

It is not necessary to me to interrogate. For this purpose there is a web socket. And I will request/send the data on ajax. Also I will receive the maximum scoring on all fronts.

wrote:

. the server should answer even if for the client there is no . not a big loading, but at a considerable quantity of clients the server should process requests permanently. Therefore scaling also is required.

Scaling is required not therefore. The overwhelming number of tasks, does not demand back coupling from the server. The data is necessary only when the user makes certain actions. Presses the button, receives result. So all web is arranged, and not only the web, too UI in itself does not live in a desktop, sits you wait for events from the user, or from trees yesterday tears?
And for notification messages,  it is possible to use a web socket, it for this purpose and is created. Well even for games well.