I am using Chromium to scrape data and during high scale Chromium is creating a large number of tcp connections to the SOCKS5 proxy(Dante). According to my observations, for just two tabs there were 15 connections to the proxy and the number of connections went up to 25 when I opened four tabs. I am trying to figure out if there's a way to limit these connections either at Chromium or at Dante.
Dante supports limiting the number of sessions (connections) from a given client using it's session module syntax. E.g., adding the below to the appropriate rules in your sockd.conf would limit the number of sessions per client to 10:
#per-ip limit
session.state.key: from
session.state.max: 10
More information is available on the Dante website: https://www.inet.no/dante/doc/1.4.x/config/session.html
Related
Is there way to get the details of client connections in Ignite/Gridgain cluster.
Number of active connections
Number of total connections (active+inactive)
Is there any parameter to close the inactive client connections after x seconds?
1,2 You can use ignite metrics to obtain thin client connections information.
Check out this article https://ignite.apache.org/docs/latest/monitoring-metrics/new-metrics#ignite-thin-client-connector
3 Probably, idle timeout is exactly what you are looking for
https://ignite.apache.org/releases/latest/javadoc/org/apache/ignite/configuration/ClientConnectorConfiguration.html#setIdleTimeout-long-
I want to configure IP Load Balancing service for our VPS. I have got the documentation at http://docs.ovh.ca/en/products-iplb.html#presentation where I can integrate it.
I want to limit the number of requests on each server (S1, S2). How can I achieve this?
Suppose, I want S1 should handle all requests if requests sent to load balancer are less than 3500 per minute.
If requests are greater than 3500 (per minute), then load balancer should forward all extra requests to S2.
Regards,
Just had a look and I believe you won't be able to achieve what you are looking for with the available load balancing algorithm.
If you look at the available ones, you can see five ldb algorithm. I would say from my experience with load balancers (not from OVH) that they should do the following:
First: probably the first real server to reply (with health monitor) will get the query
leastcon: this distributes connections to the server that is currently managing the fewest open connections at the time the new connection request is received.
roundrobin: next connection is given to the next real server in line
source: not sure about this one but I believe you load-balance per src ip. Eg if request is coming from 143.32.Y.Z, send it to server A etc.
uri: I believe it load balances by URI. Typical if you are hosting different webservers.
I would advise to check with OVH what you can do. Typically in those scenario with an F5 load balancer for example, you can configure a simple script for this. Or groups, if the first group fail, we sent the traffic to the second one.
Now a ratio (also called weighted) ldb algo can do the job, not exactly what you want indeed.
Cheers
I am looking for a stack allowing to connect several hundred devices,
Openthread has max numbers of hopes equal 16.
Is it possible to extend that number to have 300 devices connected sequentially?
What are requirements to the chip in this case if possible or what limits the max number of connected routing devices?
The Thread Protocol Specification currently has a limit of 15 hops between routers (or 17 hops between end devices). It is not possible to connect hundreds of devices sequentially. At the same time, the Thread Protocol does connecting hundreds of end devices to each router. However, in most practical cases, the number of end devices a router supports is determined by its memory resources.
If I have four identical servers hosted on AWS EC2, divided into two groups and the each group is located in different AWS regions. There is one ELB in front of each group. I configured two weighted alias records (not latency based) point to the ELB of each group in the AWS Route53.
Each server has a simple apache2 server installed which display a simple page with different words to distinguish from each other. I started a browser client (made by Selenium library) frequently reloading page with the URL which is the domain name of these servers (pause for 1 seconds) but I found that that the browser (firefox) always return pages from servers in one group instead of returning pages from both group in 50% times as how Weighted Round Robin works.
I also found that if I pause for a relatively longer time, pages from the other group do get returned but as long as I refresh the page frequently. It never changes. Request always hits one group not the other.
I also wrote a simple Java program to keep querying the domain name from AWS Route 53 and the address I got back does change between two group, but the browser seems stuck in the connection with the group it first connected (as long as I frequently refresh)
I suspect it is the problem of TCP connection still alive, but I am not sure. BTW, I have already disabled browser cache and I am using Mac OS X 10.9. (This does happen on Ubuntu as well)
Any ideas will be really appreciated. This issue is really important to my works the deadline of which is approaching. Many many thanks in advance.
Unfortunately, that's normal.
Many, perhaps most, browsers cache the dns response they get from the OS, and the timing of this cache is unrelated to the DNS TTL -- it's at the discretion of the browser developers.
For Firefox, the time by default appears to be 60 seconds, so, not likely to be directly related to keepalives, though there's certainly some potential for that, too... albeit for a shorter time interval, in some cases, since many servers will tear down an idle kept-alive connection before 60 seconds, since a connection idle for so long is a potentially expensive waste of a resource.
Firefox: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Network.dnsCacheExpiration
For a discussion of the issue and observations made of the behavior of different browsers, see also: http://dyn.com/blog/web-browser-dns-caching-bad-thing/
i would like build an only-audio conference system based on webrtc for a game, but i must avoid lag.
for example i can use https://github.com/muaz-khan/WebRTC-Experiment/tree/master/RTCMultiConnection
How many clients can be connected in the same time?and about bandwidth?
I think that the upload will be a limit increasing the amount of connected client.
Could i make a Tree of clients, so each client have only 2 or 3 connections?
The server can be in any language because i will use vert.x
regards
There are two scenarios:
1: Peer-to-Peer
In this model; maximum peer connections limit per page on chromium is 256.
2: Peer-to-Server
In this model; you can use media server to relay stream over unlimited peers.
In 1st model; you can face bandwidth/cpu usage issue.
In 2nd model; all such things are handled by the media server.
If you're planning to setup peer-to-peer video-conferencing; you'll use mesh model. It is suggested to limit conferencing to 5 users only. Otherwise, you'll face issues like audio-lost, echo and obviously bandwidth/cpu huge usage!
In broadcasting p2p scenarios; you can relay i.e. forward remote streams to overcome burden from single peer.