cgbystrom
Joined 17 years ago
Karma
1,424
Submissions
105
Member since
Apr 26
[ my public key: https://keybase.io/cgbystrom; my proof: https://keybase.io/cgbystrom/sigs/4pm_EUhW9VrHxq8BrtPnWEe2kN_u-s_qOxaCmFOY4kk ]
View on Hacker NewsRecent submissions
Comment · 13 years ago
With our team, we also found shared folders performance to be too low. Our Python framework/app is very read-heavy and stat() a lot of files (the Python module loading system isn't your friend)
We ended up using the synchronization feature in PyCharm to continually rsync files from native FS into the VirtualBox instance. Huge perf improvement but a little more cumbersome for the developers. But so far it has been working good, PyCharm's sync feature does what it is supposed to.
Comment · 14 years ago
There's also Locust, a Python powered load testing tool similar to this. It's focused on simulating user behavior rather than hitting specific URLs. This allows for much more true-to-life testing.
We used it to load test Battlelog (the online service for Battlefield 3) and successfully simulated over 2 million concurrent users hitting the service using EC2. See http://locust.io for more info. (Disclaimer: I'm one of the authors)
Comment · 14 years ago
Totally agree about having smaller and more contained apps.
I used https://github.com/cgbystrom/jersey-netty for a one-off project wiring Jersey together with Netty. But it's not async :)
Comment · 14 years ago
Without need to discuss security implementations - no.
Comment · 14 years ago
Protocol handlers are a pretty shitty way of interfacing with desktop apps. There's no two-way communication and no error handling. Lots of potential screw-ups and incompatibility issues will/can happen. Sure, they don't require a browser plugin but that's about the only advantage.
Comment · 14 years ago
I would strongly advise not to base your push mechanism solely on Web Sockets. Despite advances modern browsers are making with Web Sockets support, the current compatibility is not there yet.
For starters, IE has no support, though that is starting to change with IE10. But the biggest issue is with personal firewalls / corporate proxies. These are unfortunately quite horrible at handling Web Sockets. Many popular firewalls such as avast! and Bitdefender can’t handle the WS protocol and completely blocks traffic despite browser support and it being valid HTTP. The socket.io guys did some extensive research on what firewalls are causing these issues. I don’t think their list is exhaustive but it features most major personal firewalls out there. Have a look at https://github.com/LearnBoost/socket.io/wiki/Socket.IO-and-f... , it's no reading of joy.
I’ve deployed quite large installations of Beaconpush (a push server incidentally based on Netty as well). First going from Web Sockets with fallback, over to pure WS and we’re looking at going back to using fallbacks once again due to these incompatibility issues. This time we are looking at using SockJS instead of rolling our own (to be fair, there were no open-source libs doing this when we started). I’ve ported SockJS to Netty (https://github.com/cgbystrom/sockjs-netty) and it’s working although I wouldn’t say it is production ready.
I urge you to have a look at SockJS and socket.io. Personally I prefer SockJS since it aims at emulating the Web Socket interface and nothing more as compared to socket.io (which adds a pub/sub layer). Also, it does not rely on a Flash fallback (which is another story). The socket.io guys are however working on engine.io, which will split the transport fallback mechanisms of socket.io to a separate library. That's a good idea, but it still uses Flash and IMHO a more complex "transport upgrade".