Connection pooling for a Net::Server application

alech has asked for the wisdom of the Perl Monks concerning the following question:

Hi, I am working on OpenXPKI, an open source PKI project that has (roughly) the following design:

A server (using Net::Server::Fork) listens on a Unix domain socket for connections and handles messages from users.
A Mason/mod_perl-based web interface talks to this server.

So we have one forked server for each connection made by the webserver, which (depending on how many Apache workers there are) turns into quite an amount of idling connections (and into a good amount of overhead for newly forking those servers, which do some setup each time they are forked (re-opening DB connections, for example). I guess the design is not exactly the best here, but I am currently not in the position to change it.

This is why I am looking at some kind of connection pooling mechanism, so my basic idea would be have a server that listens at another domain socket, have the apache workers talk with this one and let this server have a pool of connections to the "real" server, of which it knows whether they are currently usable for a request.

I am looking for suggestions on how to implement this best. POE::Component::Client::Keepalive looks interesting, but I haven't had much exposure to POE yet. Anything else I might be missing, or maybe an easy way to fix that problem without introducing a new connection pooling server?

Looking forward to your suggestions ...
Alex

Comment on Connection pooling for a Net::Server application

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Connection pooling for a Net::Server application by tilly (Archbishop) on Aug 29, 2008 at 16:50 UTC
This is a classic example of creating new problems because you are not willing to fix an existing bad decision. Read mod_perl: Choosing the Right Strategy. Pay close attention to the 4th alternative. That is the standard strategy for serving high-volume websites with mod_perl, and it is the standard solution for very good reason. Setting up and configuring that should completely solve your problem. If you follow your idea and set up a connection pooling server, what you'll essentially have done is inserted another tier in your web architecture that everything proxies through. That's a lot of overhead for no gain over the standard architecture. Worse yet, if your web pages sometimes don't release their database connections before sending data back, then you've reinvented your current architecture with more complications and overhead. Conversely if they are too eager to grab and release connections in a fine-grained way, then you've added a lot of overhead on your webservers from grabbing and releasing connections in the pool for no gain over the standard architecture. If you're absolutely not willing to reconsider the existing architectural decisions, then instead of inserting a connection pooling server I would highly recommend inserting a FastCGI server. Then move your logic from Apache to FastCGI. Your code won't change much and you'll wind up with what is essentially the recommended Apache configuration with slightly different technology choices. That will work well for the same reasons that the recommended Apache configuration does.	[reply]
Re^2: Connection pooling for a Net::Server application by alech (Initiate) on Aug 29, 2008 at 21:36 UTC
Hi tilly, thanks for your detailed comment! This is a classic example of creating new problems because you are not willing to fix an existing bad decision. I am willing to fix this, but not right now, I just don't have the time for restructuring the complete project at the moment. The 4th alternative looks like a clever solution, but I don't think it solves my problem - the users are typically on a fast LAN, so buffering for modem users is not an issue. As for the architecture, the mod_perl part is also not the problem, the architecture currently already has one additional tier - nearly no computations and no database lookups take place on the mod_perl interface, but they are all behind the connection the backend OpenXPKI server over a Unix domain socket. As for inserting another tier, you've got a point. I still believe if that tier was lightweight enough, it might improve the performance ... I'll have a look at FastCGI, but it will probably "only" solve the same problem as the reverse proxy, which seems like it might be attacking the wrong side of the problem. I guess we already have a rather unusual architecture to start with ... Cheers, Alex	[reply]
Re^3: Connection pooling for a Net::Server application by perrin (Chancellor) on Aug 30, 2008 at 05:21 UTC
Even if your users are on fast LAN, if you're serving images from mod_perl, you're running a lot more mod_perl processes than you need to be. You might be able to cut the number of connections to your server from mod_perl in half or more just by reducing the number of mod_perl processes running with a reverse proxy.	[reply]
Re^3: Connection pooling for a Net::Server application by tilly (Archbishop) on Aug 29, 2008 at 23:56 UTC
FastCGI will also solve the problem of having to create an expensive database connection per web request. It does that by reusing processes from one request to the next. That problem will also be removed if you move the rest of the database interactions out of mod_perl. Heck, if you're right that virtually no database lookups happen then you could play the silly trick of replacing your database handle with a proxy object that will only connect if used. This will mean that any requests that don't touch the database don't connect to it.	[reply]
Re: Connection pooling for a Net::Server application by samtregar (Abbot) on Aug 29, 2008 at 16:50 UTC
Can you change it to use Net::Server::PreFork? -sam	[reply]
Re^2: Connection pooling for a Net::Server application by alech (Initiate) on Aug 29, 2008 at 21:47 UTC
Hi sam, I'll have to look into that a bit deeper, it doesn't seem to work out of the box, apparently only the first connection to the socket works and if a second is then opened, it does not seem to respond or so. Might be an option though if I manage to fix the problem. Thanks ... Alex	[reply]


Keep It Simple, Stupid
	PerlMonks