We Keep Coding

Flask server unresponsive port - how to kill all threads

I am running a Flask powered server in Python. The server has several POST and GET routes. Everything works fine for many days, then suddenly it becomes unresponsive from the point of view of the client, i.e. from the client side it looks like the server is unreachable or not running. Looking at the server side everything seems running normally. I suspect that at the OS level (Windows server 2012) a TCP socket may go bad but I do not get any exception notification on the server. To try and escape this status I have added a heartbeat POST, and server side a periodic scheduled check every 2 minutes that there is a fresher heartbeat coming from the client. If that is not the case (i.e. stale heartbeats) then my idea was to kill all threads serverside (a CTRL-C generated from within the python code) and then restart it externally via the launching script. This is what I followed to kill the server: http://flask.pocoo.org/snippets/67/ However at the first occurrence of the "unreachable" state it looks like also the GET/POST route from localhost is now unresponsive. So the shutdown never gets triggered.
Now my question: is there a way from a scheduler spawned thread to kill all other threads, including the Flask app.run thread?
Many thanks!
PB

Serving Python (Flask) REST API over HTTP2

I have a Python REST service and I want to serve it using HTTP2. My current server setup is nginx -> Gunicorn. In other words, nginx (port 443 and 80 that redirects to port 443) is running as a reverse proxy and forwards requests to Gunicorn (port 8000, no SSL). nginx is running in HTTP2 mode and I can verify that by using chrome and inspecting the 'protocol' column after sending a simple GET to the server. However, Gunicorn reports that the requests it receives are HTTP1.0. Also, I coulnt't find it in this list:
https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/wiki/Implementations
So, my questions are:
Is it possible to serve a Python (Flask) application with HTTP2? If yes, which servers support it?
In my case (one reverse proxy server and one serving the actual API), which server has to support HTTP2?
The reason I want to use HTTP2 is because in some cases I need to perform thousands of requests all together and I was interested to see if the multiplexed requests feature of HTTP2 can speed things up. With HTTP1.0 and Python Requests as the client, each request takes ~80ms which is unacceptable. The other solution would be to just bulk/batch my REST resources and send multiple with a single requests. Yes, this idea sounds just fine, but I am really interested to see if HTTP2 could speed things up.
Finally, I should mention that for the client side I use Python Requests with the Hyper http2 adapter.

Is it possible to serve a Python (Flask) application with HTTP/2?
Yes, by the information you provide, you are doing it just fine.
In my case (one reverse proxy server and one serving the actual API), which server has to support HTTP2?
Now I'm going to tread on thin ice and give opinions.
The way HTTP/2 has been deployed so far is by having an edge server that talks HTTP/2 (like ShimmerCat or NginX). That server terminates TLS and HTTP/2, and from there on uses HTTP/1, HTTP/1.1 or FastCGI to talk to the inner application.
Can, at least theoretically, an edge server talk HTTP/2 to web application? Yes, but HTTP/2 is complex and for inner applications, it doesn't pay off very well.
That's because most web application frameworks are built for handling requests for content, and that's done well enough with HTTP/1 or FastCGI. Although there are exceptions, web applications have little use for the subtleties of HTTP/2: multiplexing, prioritization, all the myriad of security precautions, and so on.
The resulting separation of concerns is in my opinion a good thing.
Your 80 ms response time may have little to do with the HTTP protocol you are using, but if those 80 ms are mostly spent waiting for input/output, then of course running things in parallel is a good thing.
Gunicorn will use a thread or a process to handle each request (unless you have gone the extra-mile to configure the greenlets backend), so consider if letting Gunicorn spawn thousands of tasks is viable in your case.
If the content of your requests allow it, maybe you can create temporary files and serve them with an HTTP/2 edge server.

It is now possible to serve HTTP/2 directly from a Python app, for example using Twisted. You asked specifically about a Flask app though, in which case I'd (with bias) recommend Quart which is the Flask API reimplemented on top of asyncio (with HTTP/2 support).
Your actual issue,
With HTTP1.0 and Python Requests as the client, each request takes ~80ms
suggests to me that the problem you may be experiencing is that each request opens a new connection. This could be alleviated via the use of a connection pool without requiring HTTP/2.

Sending Message to user/group of users with uwsgi websockets

Recently I've been doing a lot of testing around different ways of serving our Django application. I've settled on uwsgi as it seems to fit our needs pretty well.
I've recently discovered that uwsgi also supports WebSockets and started looking into it and found some examples: https://github.com/unbit/uwsgi/blob/master/tests/
After running the example (websockets_chat.py) and taking a look through uwsgi's documention for their websockets implementation it appears as though you can only send broadcast, or global messages.
Has anyone managed to find a way to transmit a message to a particular user or does uwsgi not support that level of communication yet?
Cheers

There is nothing like broadcast or global messages in websockets specs. They only "upgrades" an http connection to a lower-level one. What you do with that connection is up to you. The examples show integration with redis as message exchanger but you are free to make other uses.
For your specific case you will need to build a shared list of connected users and implements routing. Remember, you cannot rely on node.js way as it is based on a single threaded setup so everything is way simpler. In uWSGI a websocket connection can happens on a thread, a process or a coroutine, so exchanging data between them is the key.

How to avoid polling a django/python web server?

I am creating a web app which needs to continuously poll my django web server to get an update. Is there a way avoid this polling? Like server can send push messages on update or the client registers a callback for an event and server triggers the callback whenever something changes.
I know there are signaling frameworks in ASP.net etc. but I want something which can work with Django.
Thanks

Fundamentally web sockets, part of HTML5, were design for this purpose, ie bi-directional communication between clients and servers through the http protocol, while its being highly talked about few application servers have implemented and even fewer http servers have actually even began supporting it.
While there are some packages:
django-websocket
django-socketio
that have enabled it in django, they don't do anything about your http server, very rarely if ever do you use django standalone, this is because django isn't very efficient for distributing static content such as images or any other static files, as well as distribute work load, we rely on things like nginx, apache and such things for this. unfortunately they don't support web sockets, yet, as such they tend to break the communication between the client and the application server even if its initiated in the first place, depending on implementation.
From my own personal experience nginx would break the communication after 60 seconds since this was the default allotted time for anything open.
As far as I know node.js maybe the best server, currently, for working with web sockets.
Depending on what you are tying to achieve and If regular polling seems in efficient you can try long-polling, basically the connection is held open, until theres new data to be pushed back unto the client vs regular polling, which is done at some interval, note that you may have to configure your http server not to terminate pro-long open connections and run django multithreaded, since each connection will use an instance.

Making moves w/ websockets and python / django ( / twisted? )

The fun part of websockets is sending essentially unsolicited content from the server to the browser right?
Well, I'm using django-websocket by Gregor Müllegger. It's a really wonderful early crack at making websockets work in Django.
I have accomplished "hello world." The way this works is: when a request is a websocket, an object, websocket, is appended to the request object. Thus, I can, in the view interpreting the websocket, do something like:
request.websocket.send('We are the knights who say ni!')
That works fine. I get the message back in the browser like a charm.
But what if I want to do that without issuing a request from the browser at all?
OK, so first I save the websocket in the session dictionary:
request.session['websocket'] = request.websocket
Then, in a shell, I go and grab the session by session key. Sure enough, there's a websocket object in the session dictionary. Happy!
However, when I try to do:
>>> session.get_decoded()['websocket'].send('With a herring!')
I get:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<console>", line 1, in <module>
error: [Errno 9] Bad file descriptor
Sad. :-(
OK, so I don't know much of anything about sockets, but I know enough to sniff around in a debugger, and lo and behold, I see that the socket in my debugger (which is tied to the genuine websocket from the request) has fd=6, while the one that I grabbed from the session-saved websocket has fd=-1.
Can a socket-oriented person help me sort this stuff out?

I'm the author of django-websocket. I'm not a real expert in the topic of websockets and networking, however I think I have a decent understanding of whats going on. Sorry for going into great detail. Even if most of the answer isn't specific to your question it might help you at some other point. :-)
How websockets work
Let me explain shortly what a websocket is. A websocket starts as something that really looks like a plain HTTP request, established from the browser. It indicates through a HTTP header that it wants to "upgrade" the protocol to be a websocket instead of a HTTP request. If the server supports websockets, it agrees on the handshake and both - server and client - now know that they will use the established tcp socket formerly used for the HTTP request as a connection to interchange websocket messages.
Beside sending and waiting for messages, they have also of course the ability to close the connection at any time.
How django-websocket abuses the python's wsgi request environment to hijack the socket
Now lets get into the details of how django-websocket implements the "upgrading" of the HTTP request in a django request-response cylce.
Django usually uses the WSGI specification to talk to the webserver like apache or gunicorn etc. This specification was designed just with the very limited communication model of HTTP in mind. It assumes that it gets a HTTP request (only incoming data) and returns the response (only outgoing data). This makes it tricky to force django into the concept of a websocket where bidirectional communication is allowed.
What I'm doing in django-websocket to achieve this is that I dig very deeply into the internals of WSGI and django's request object to retrieve the underlaying socket. This tcp socket is then used to handle the upgrade the HTTP request to a websocket instance directly.
Now to your original question ...
I hope the above makes it obvious that when a websocket is established, there is no point in returning a HttpResponse. This is why you usually don't return anything in a view that is handled by django-websocket.
However I wanted to stick close to the concept of a view that holds the logic and returns data based on the input. This is why you should only use the code in your view to handle the websocket.
After you return from the view, the websocket is automatically closed. This is done for a reason: We don't want to keep the socket open for an undefined amount of time and relying on the client (the browser) to close it.
This is why you cannot access a websocket with django-websocket outside of your view. The file descriptor is then of course set to -1 indicating that its already closed.
Disclaimer
I explained above that I'm digging in the surrounding environment of django to get somehow -- in a very hackish way -- access to the underlaying socket. This is very fragile and also not supposed to work since WSGI is not designed for this! I also explained above that the websocket is closed after the view ends - however after the websocket closed down (AND closed the tcp socket), django's WSGI implementation tries to send a HTTP response - it doesn't know about websockets and thinks it is in a normal HTTP request-response cycle. But the socket is already closed an the sending will fail. This usually causes an exception in django.
This didn't affected my testings with the development server. The browser will never notice (you know .. the socket is already closed ;-) - but raising an unhandled error in every request is not a very good concept and may leak memory, doesn't handle database connection shutdown correctly and many athor things that will break at some point if you use django-websocket for more than experimenting.
This is why I would really advise you not to use websockets with django yet. It doesn't work by design. Django and especially WSGI would need a total overhaul to solve these problems (see this discussion for websockets and WSGI). Since then I would suggest using something like eventlet. Eventlet has a working websocket implementation (I borrowed some code from eventlet for the initial version of django-websocket) and since its just plain python code you can import your models and everything else from django. The only drawback is that you need a second webserver running just to handle websockets.

As Gregor Müllegger pointed out, Websockets can't be properly handled by WSGI, because that protocol never was designed to handle such a feature.
uWSGI, since version 1.9.11, can handle Websockets out of the box. Here uWSGI communicates with the application server using raw HTTP rather than the WSGI protocol. A server written that way, can therefore handle the protocol internals and keep the connection open over a long period. Having long living connections handled by a Django view is not a good idea either, because they then would block a worker thread, which is a limited resource.
The main purpose of Websockets, is to have the server push messages to the client in an asynchronous way. This can be a Django view triggered by other browsers (ex.: chat clients, multiplayer games), or an event triggered by, say django-celery (ex.: sport results). It therefore is fundamental for these Django services, to use a message queue for pushing messages to the client.
To handle this in a scalable way, I wrote django-websocket-redis, a Django module which can keep open all those long living Websocket connections in one single thread/process using Redis as the backend message queue.

You could give stargate a bash: http://boothead.github.com/stargate/ and http://pypi.python.org/pypi/stargate/.
It's built on top of pyramid and eventlet (I also contributed a fair bit of the websocket support and tests to eventlet). The big advantage of pyramid for this sort of thing is that it's got the concept of a resource which the url maps to, rather than just the result of a callable. So you end up with a graph of persistent resources that maps to your url structure and websocket connections are simply routed and connected to those resources.
So you end up only needing to do two things:
class YourView(WebSocketView):
def handler(self, websocket):
self.request.context.add_listener(websocket)
while True:
msg = websocket.wait()
# Do something with message
To receive messages
and
resource.send(some_other_message)
Here resource is an instance of a stargate.resource.WebSocketAwareContext (as is self.request.context) above and the send method sends the message to all clients connected with the add_listener method.
To publish a message to all of the connected clients you just call node.send(message)
I'm hopefully going to write up a little example app in the next week or two to demonstrate this a little better.
Feel free to ping me on github if you want some help with it.

request.websocket is probably get closed when you return from the request handler (view). The simple solution is to keep the handler alive (by not returning from the view). If your server is not multi-threaded you won't be able to accept any other simultaneous requests.