summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/erlang-tcp-socket-pull-pattern.md
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'erlang-tcp-socket-pull-pattern.md')
-rw-r--r--erlang-tcp-socket-pull-pattern.md184
1 files changed, 182 insertions, 2 deletions
diff --git a/erlang-tcp-socket-pull-pattern.md b/erlang-tcp-socket-pull-pattern.md
index c17a799..d8a60d9 100644
--- a/erlang-tcp-socket-pull-pattern.md
+++ b/erlang-tcp-socket-pull-pattern.md
@@ -26,8 +26,188 @@ flag. A socket can be set to one of:
# Which to use?
-<Explanation of how other sources claim you should use active,once, and why>
+Many (most?) tutorials advocate using `{active,once}` in your application [0][1][2]. This has to do with usability and
+security. When in `{active,true}` it's possible for a client to flood the connection faster than the receiving process
+will process those messages, potentially eating up a lot of memory in the VM. However, if you want to be able to receive
+both tcp data messages as well as other messages from other erlang processes at the same time you can't use `{active,false}`.
+So `{active,once}` is generally preferred because it deals with both of these problems quite well.
-# Why not to use it
+# Why not to use `{active,once}`
+Here's what your classic `{active,once}` enabled tcp socket implementation will probably look like:
+```erlang
+-module(tcp_test).
+-compile(export_all).
+
+-define(TCP_OPTS, [binary, {packet, raw}, {nodelay,true}, {active, false}, {reuseaddr, true}, {keepalive,true}, {backlog,500}]).
+
+%Start listening
+listen(Port) ->
+ {ok, L} = gen_tcp:listen(Port, ?TCP_OPTS),
+ ?MODULE:accept(L).
+
+%Accept a connection
+accept(L) ->
+ {ok, Socket} = gen_tcp:accept(L),
+ ?MODULE:read_loop(Socket),
+ io:fwrite("Done reading, connection was closed\n"),
+ ?MODULE:accept(L).
+
+%Read everything it sends us
+read_loop(Socket) ->
+ inet:setopts(Socket, [{active, once}]),
+ receive
+ {tcp, _, _} ->
+ do_stuff_here,
+ ?MODULE:read_loop(Socket);
+ {tcp_closed, _}-> donezo;
+ {tcp_error, _, _} -> donezo
+ end.
+```
+
+This code isn't actually usable for a production system; it doesn't even spawn a new process for the new socket. But that's not
+the point I'm making. If I run it with `tcp_test:listen(8000)`, and in other window do:
+
+```bash
+while [ 1 ]; do echo "aloha"; done | nc localhost 8000
+```
+
+We'll be flooding the the server with data pretty well. Using [eprof](http://www.erlang.org/doc/man/eprof.html) we can get an idea
+of how our code performs, and where the hang-ups are:
+
+```erlang
+1> eprof:start().
+{ok,<0.34.0>}
+
+2> P = spawn(tcp_test,listen,[8000]).
+<0.36.0>
+
+3> eprof:start_profiling([P]).
+profiling
+
+4> running_the_while_loop.
+running_the_while_loop
+
+5> eprof:stop_profiling().
+profiling_stopped
+
+6> eprof:analyze(procs,[{sort,time}]).
+
+****** Process <0.36.0> -- 100.00 % of profiled time ***
+FUNCTION CALLS % TIME [uS / CALLS]
+-------- ----- --- ---- [----------]
+prim_inet:type_value_2/2 6 0.00 0 [ 0.00]
+
+....snip....
+
+prim_inet:enc_opts/2 6 0.00 8 [ 1.33]
+prim_inet:setopts/2 12303599 1.85 1466319 [ 0.12]
+tcp_test:read_loop/1 12303598 2.22 1761775 [ 0.14]
+prim_inet:encode_opt_val/1 12303599 3.50 2769285 [ 0.23]
+prim_inet:ctl_cmd/3 12303600 4.29 3399333 [ 0.28]
+prim_inet:enc_opt_val/2 24607203 5.28 4184818 [ 0.17]
+inet:setopts/2 12303598 5.72 4533863 [ 0.37]
+erlang:port_control/3 12303600 77.13 61085040 [ 4.96]
+```
+
+eprof shows us where our process is spending the majority of its time. The `%` column indicates percentage of time the process spent
+during profiling inside any function. We can pretty clearly see that the vast majority of time was spent inside `erlang:port_control/3`,
+the BIF that `inet:setopts/2` uses to switch the socket to `{active,once}` mode. Amongst the calls which were called on every loop,
+it takes up by far the most amount of time. In addition all of those other calls are also related to `inet:setopts/2`.
+
+I'm gonna rewrite our little listen server to use `{active,true}`, and we'll do it all again:
+
+```erlang
+-module(tcp_test).
+-compile(export_all).
+
+-define(TCP_OPTS, [binary, {packet, raw}, {nodelay,true}, {active, false}, {reuseaddr, true}, {keepalive,true}, {backlog,500}]).
+
+%Start listening
+listen(Port) ->
+ {ok, L} = gen_tcp:listen(Port, ?TCP_OPTS),
+ ?MODULE:accept(L).
+
+%Accept a connection
+accept(L) ->
+ {ok, Socket} = gen_tcp:accept(L),
+ inet:setopts(Socket, [{active, true}]), %Well this is new
+ ?MODULE:read_loop(Socket),
+ io:fwrite("Done reading, connection was closed\n"),
+ ?MODULE:accept(L).
+
+%Read everything it sends us
+read_loop(Socket) ->
+ %inet:setopts(Socket, [{active, once}]),
+ receive
+ {tcp, _, _} ->
+ do_stuff_here,
+ ?MODULE:read_loop(Socket);
+ {tcp_closed, _}-> donezo;
+ {tcp_error, _, _} -> donezo
+ end.
+```
+
+And the profiling results:
+
+```erlang
+1> eprof:start().
+{ok,<0.34.0>}
+
+2> P = spawn(tcp_test,listen,[8000]).
+<0.36.0>
+
+3> eprof:start_profiling([P]).
+profiling
+
+4> running_the_while_loop.
+running_the_while_loop
+
+5> eprof:stop_profiling().
+profiling_stopped
+
+6> eprof:analyze(procs,[{sort,time}]).
+
+****** Process <0.36.0> -- 100.00 % of profiled time ***
+FUNCTION CALLS % TIME [uS / CALLS]
+-------- ----- --- ---- [----------]
+prim_inet:enc_value_1/3 7 0.00 1 [ 0.14]
+prim_inet:decode_opt_val/1 1 0.00 1 [ 1.00]
+inet:setopts/2 1 0.00 2 [ 2.00]
+prim_inet:setopts/2 2 0.00 2 [ 1.00]
+prim_inet:enum_name/2 1 0.00 2 [ 2.00]
+erlang:port_set_data/2 1 0.00 2 [ 2.00]
+inet_db:register_socket/2 1 0.00 3 [ 3.00]
+prim_inet:type_value_1/3 7 0.00 3 [ 0.43]
+
+.... snip ....
+
+prim_inet:type_opt_1/1 19 0.00 7 [ 0.37]
+prim_inet:enc_value/3 7 0.00 7 [ 1.00]
+prim_inet:enum_val/2 6 0.00 7 [ 1.17]
+prim_inet:dec_opt_val/1 7 0.00 7 [ 1.00]
+prim_inet:dec_value/2 6 0.00 10 [ 1.67]
+prim_inet:enc_opt/1 13 0.00 12 [ 0.92]
+prim_inet:type_opt/2 19 0.00 33 [ 1.74]
+erlang:port_control/3 3 0.00 59 [ 19.67]
+tcp_test:read_loop/1 20716370 100.00 12187488 [ 0.59]
+```
+
+This time our process spent almost no time at all (according to eprof, 0%) fiddling with the socket opts.
+Instead it spent all of its time in the read_loop doing the work we actually want to be doing.
+
+# So what does this mean?
+
+I'm by no means advocating never using `{active,once}`. The security concern is still a completely valid concern and one
+that `{active,once}` mitigates quite well. I'm simply pointing out that this mitigation has some fairly serious performance
+implications which have the potential to bite you if you're not careful, especially in cases where a socket is going to be
+receiving a large amount of traffic.
+
+# Meta
+
+These tests were done using R15B03, but I've done similar ones in R14 and found similar results. I have not tested R16.
+
+[0] http://learnyousomeerlang.com/buckets-of-sockets
+[1] http://www.erlang.org/doc/man/gen_tcp.html#examples
+[2] http://erlycoder.com/25/erlang-tcp-server-tcp-client-sockets-with-gen_tcp