if someone tries to connect to ws://example.com/socketcluster, i want to redirect them to wss://example.com/socketcluster
similar to the http -> https redirect
but i don't recommend that setup even if you could make it work
you're better off using a reverse proxy
i have never tried websocket redirection so i got no clue if it's even supported
if you redirect http to https and you reverse proxy on https that should work without any issues.
@zmikolaj Workers don't exist anymore, but in v14 it was Worker.id
not sure what you mean with sending to specific channel outside of socketcluster, have to explain more what you are trying to do
@guanzo no, there is no set limit, it also depends on what your server is doing per connection, how optimized your code is, that is something you have to find out by monitoring your server during active times, see where the limit is then use 90% of that maybe even 80% during production and that's the limit your server has, then you scale by starting up more servers.
and then of course, your OS has a limit, your IP has a limit, node js has a limit everything has limits,
meanwhile servers are on fire and users are complaining
thats the joy of programming
serving a server to 10 people is easy, serving the masses is when you get into complicated things, with scaling on multiple machines etc.. clusterss
I have an important question possible to make such as level of telegram by Socket cluster ? and same making channels such as 2 million people in one channels ? Really Socket cluster have such as this level ?
a simple google search would have given you this answer, https://hackernoon.com/socketcluster-scalability-considerations-1b3355ab2fd8
@George2023 Short Answer: Yes, there is no limit on how many people can subscribe to a single channel, the limitations you are going to run into, is the x amount of messages send per second.
Appreciate for your answer very usefull.Please let me know do you know any place they are working on chat environment
Pls giv me the indian skype
are the other 3 brokers active in the scc-state ?
otherwise socketcluster is working beautifully for me, ~250k stable connections in prod, i had to spin up 20 scc-workers. 20 is a bit more than necessary until i figure out how to autoscale based on # connections
1+ million active connections on scc, is not hard to achieve
not a single scc-worker/scc-server instance, ppl get confused about that, 1 hardware server, you can accomplish a lot of active connections, with something like kubernetes or openshift etc..
@guanzo If you have a single channel, it will scale to support an unlimited number of subscribers (just add more brokers as needed). However, if you want to publish an unlimited number of messages, you may need to add additional channels. A good strategy to get even load across all brokers is to add a number at the end of the channel name (like a shard number) E.g.
mychannel1, mychannel2, mychannel3; you will need to subscribe to each channel 'shard' explicitly on the client side.
But a single channel will be assigned to a single broker process
In any case if you have a single channel and you're doing a huge number of publishes to it (more than a single broker process can handle), you may want to rethink your strategy and find a more efficient way to split up the channel into multiple smaller channels
For large number of publishes, SC works best if you spread out messages between many small channels (the more different channels you have, the more evenly the load will be spread between available brokers).
It doesn't make sense from the subscriber client side if you have a single huge channel receiving 20K messages per second (for example); most front ends cannot display messages that fast anyway. It's important to design your system to avoid these huge channels; try to design your channels in a frontend-centered way.
so my setup is an arbitrary amount of frontend clients all publishing to a single channel that a backend client subscribes to. no frontend clients are subscribing so that situation you just described doesn't happen to me.
based on what you said, i guess the quick fix is to split the single channel into several, and have clients pick 1 to publish to
based on what you said, i guess the quick fix is to split the single channel into several, and have clients pick 1 to publish to
that should spread load across brokers more evenly
i'm using socketcluster as an central router (i'm replacing crossbar.io), so frontend clients can publish messages to the backend client via socketcluster. basically RPC over pubsub
and these backend clients are separate services that subscribe to socketcluster. my socketcluster app itself has very little app-specific code