I am making use of "socket.io-client" and "socket.io stream" to make a request and then stream some data. I have the following code that handles this logic
Client Server Logic
router.get('/writeData', function(req, res) {
var io = req.app.get('socketio');
var nameNodeSocket = io.connect(NAMENODE_ADDRESS, { reconnect: true });
var nameNodeData = {};
async.waterfall([
checkForDataNodes,
readFileFromS3
], function(err, result) {
if (err !== null) {
res.json(err);
}else{
res.json("Finished Writing to DN's");
}
});
function checkForDataNodes(cb) {
nameNodeSocket.on('nameNodeData', function(data) {
nameNodeData = data;
console.log(nameNodeData);
cb(null, nameNodeData);
});
if (nameNodeData.numDataNodes === 0) {
cb("No datanodes found");
}
}
function readFileFromS3(nameNodeData, cb) {
for (var i in nameNodeData['blockToDataNodes']) {
var IP = nameNodeData['blockToDataNodes'][i]['ipValue'];
var dataNodeSocket = io.connect('http://'+ IP +":5000");
var ss = require("socket.io-stream");
var stream = ss.createStream();
var byteStartRange = nameNodeData['blockToDataNodes'][i]['byteStart'];
var byteStopRange = nameNodeData['blockToDataNodes'][i]['byteStop'];
paramsWithRange['Range'] = "bytes=" + byteStartRange.toString() + "-" + byteStopRange.toString();
//var file = require('fs').createWriteStream('testFile' + i + '.txt');
var getFileName = nameNodeData['blockToDataNodes'][i]['key'].split('/');
var fileData = {
'mainFile': paramsWithRange['Key'].split('/')[1],
'blockName': getFileName[1]
};
ss(dataNodeSocket).emit('sendData', stream, fileData);
s3.getObject(paramsWithRange).createReadStream().pipe(stream);
//dataNodeSocket.disconnect();
}
cb(null);
}
});
Server Logic (that gets the data)
var dataNodeIO = require('socket.io')(server);
var ss = require("socket.io-stream");
dataNodeIO.on('connection', function(socket) {
console.log("Succesfully connected!");
ss(socket).on('sendData', function(stream, data) {
var IP = data['ipValue'];
var blockName = data['blockName'];
var mainFile = data['mainFile'];
dataNode.makeDir(mainFile);
dataNode.addToReport(mainFile, blockName);
stream.pipe(fs.createWriteStream(mainFile + '/' + blockName));
});
});
How can I properly disconnect the connections in function readFileFromS3
. I have noticed using dataNodeSocket.disconnect()
at the end does not work as I cannot verify the data was received on the 2nd server. But if I comment it out, I can see the data being streamed to the second server.
My objective is to close the connections in Client Server side
It appears that the main problem with closing the socket is that you weren't waiting for the stream to be done writing before trying to close the socket. So, because the writing is all asynchronous and finishes sometime later, you were trying to close the socket before the data had been written.
Also because you were putting asynchronous operations inside a
for
loop, you were also running all your operations in parallel which may not be exactly what you want as it makes error handling more difficult and server load more difficult.Here's the code I would suggest that does the following:
streamFileFromS3()
that streams a single file and returns a promise that will notify when it's done.await
in afor
loop with thatstreamFileFromS3()
to serialize the operations. You don't have to serialize them, but then you would have to change your error handling to figure out what to do if one errors while the others are already running and you'd have to be more careful about concurrency issues.streamFileFromS3()
.data['propertyName']
todata.propertyName
. The only time you need to use brackets is if the property name contains a character that is not allowed in a Javascript identifier or if the property name is in a variable. Otherwise, the dot notation is preferred.So, here's the code for that:
Other notes:
I don't know what
paramsWithRange
is as it is not declared here and when you were doing everything in parallel, it was getting shared among all the connections which is asking for a concurrency issue. In my serialized implementation, it's probably safe to share it, but the way it is now bothers me as it's a concurrency issue waiting to happen.