Design of Web Workers for NodeJS

The node-webworker module aims to implement as much of the HTML5 Web Workers API as is practical and useful in the context of NodeJS. Extensions to the HTML5 API are provided where it makes sense (e.g. to allow file descriptor passing).


Why bother to implement Web Workers for NodeJS? After all, child process support is already provided by the child_process module.

  • A set of standard (well, emerging standard anyway) platform-independent concurrency APIs is a useful abstraction. Particularly as HTML5 gains wider adoption and JavaScript developers are likely to familiar with Web Workers from doing browser development. The set of NodeJS primitives for managing processes, child_process provides a lot of utility, but is easily misunderstood by developers who have not developed for a UNIX platform before (e.g. why does kill() not kill my process?).In addition, the error reporting APIs in the Web Workers spec are more full-featured and JavaScript-specific than that provided natively by child_process (e.g. one can get a stack trace, etc).
  • Existing communication mechanisms with child processes involve communicating over stdin / stdout. Use of these built-in streams prevents sys.puts() and friends from working as expected. Further, these are opaque byte streams and require the application to implement their own framing logic to discern message boundaries.
  • HTML5 Shared Workers (also part of the same spec) provide a useful naming service for communicating with other workers by name. Without this, the application must maintain its own metadata for routing messages between workers. Note that shared workers are not yet implemented.


The design that follows for Web Workers is motivated by a handful of underlying assumptions / philosophies:

  • Worker instances should be relatively long-lived. That is, it is not considered an important workload to be able to create and destroy thousands of workers as quickly as possible. Passing messages to existing workers to dispatch work items is favored over creating a new worker for each work item.
  • In the future, it will be desirable to run workers off-box, and to implement workers in other application frameworks / languages. This is particularly relevant in the choice of communication medium.
  • When practical, relevant standards and existing building blocks should be taken advantage of, particularly those that are geared towards JavaScript and/or HTTP. For example, this was one of the motivators for selecting Web Sockets as a messaging layer rather than rolling my own.

Worker processes

Each worker executes in its own self-contained node process rather than as a separate thread and V8 context within the master process.

The benefits of this approach include fault isolation (any worker running out of memory or triggering some buggy C++ code will not take down other workers); avoiding the complexity of managing multiple event loops in a single process; and typical OSes are more likely to schedule different processes on different CPUs (this may not always happen for multiple threads within the same process), allowing the application to utilize multiple CPUs.

Of course, there are drawbacks including the cost of context switching between workers being more expensive when using a process-per-worker model than it would be in a thread-per-worker model; passing messages between processes typically requires a data copy and always requires serializing data; and the overhead of spawning a new process.

The worker context

Each worker is launched by lib/webworker-child.js, which is handed paths to the UNIX socket to use for communication with the parent process (see below) and the worker application itself.

This script is passed to node as the entry point for the process and is responsible for constructing a V8 script context populated with bits relevant to the Web Worker API (e.g. the postMessage(), close() and location primitives, etc). This also establishes communication with the parent process and wires up the message send/receive listeners. It's important to note that all of this happens in a context entirely separate from the one in which the worker application will be executing; the worker gets a seemingly plane-Jane Node runtime with the Web Worker API bolted on. The worker application doesn't need to require() additional libraries or anything.

Inter-Worker communication

The Web Workers spec describes a simple message passing API.

Under the covers, this is implemented by connecting each dedicated worker to its parent process with a UNIX domain socket. This is lower overhead than TCP, and allows for UNIX goodies like file descriptor passing. Each master process creates dedicated UNIX socket for each worker the path /tmp/node-webworker-<pid>/<worker-id>, where <pid> is the PID of the process doing the creating, and<worker-id> is an ID of the worker being created. Although muddying up the filesystem namespace doesn't thrill me, this makes the implementation easier than listening on a single socket for all workers.

Message passing is done over this UNIX socket by negotiating an HTML5 Web Socket connection over this transport. This is done to provide a reasonably-performant standards-based message framing implementation and to lay the groundwork or communicating with off-box workers via HTTP over TCP, which may be implemented in another application stack entirely (e.g. Java, etc). The overhead of negotiating and maintaining the Web Socket connection is 1 round trip for handshaking and the overhead of maintaining HTTP state objects (http_parser and such). The handshaking overhead is not considered an undue burden given that workers are expected to be relatively long-lived and the HTTP state overhead considered small.

Message format

The format of the messages themselves is JSON, serialized using JSON.stringify() and de-serialized using JSON.parse(). Significantly, the use of a framing protocol allows the Web Workers implementation to wait for an entire, complete JSON blob to arrive before invoking JSON.parse(). Although not implemented, it should be possible to negotiate supported content encoding (e.g. to support MsgPack, BERT, etc) when setting up the Web Socket connection. The built-in JSON object is relatively performant though node-msgpack is quite a bit faster, particularly when de-serializing.

Each object passed to postMessage() is wrapped in an array like so [<msg-type>, <object>]. This allows the receiving end of the message to distinguish control messages (CLOSE, ERROR, etc) from user-initiated messages.

Sending file descriptors

As mentioned above, this Web Workers implementation can take advantage of node's ability to send file descriptors using UNIX sockets. As a nonstandard extension to the postMessage(obj [,<fd>]) API, an optional file descriptor can be specified. On symmetric API extension was made on the receiving end, where the onmessage(obj [,<fd>]) handler is passed a fd parameter if a file descriptor was received along with the specified message.

Unfortunately, UNIX sockets seem to allow file descriptors to arrive out-of-band with respect to the data payload with which they were sent. To tie a received file descriptor to the message with which it was sent, all messages are wrapped in an array of the form [<fd-seqno>, <obj>], where <obj> is the object passed to postMessage(). The <fd-seqno> parameter starts off at 0 and is incremented for every file descriptor sent (the first file descriptor sent has a <fd-seqno> of 1). This provides the receiving end with enough metadata to tie out-of-band descriptors together with their originating message.