February 11, 2024
Long Polling for Software Engineers: A Smarter Path to Real-Time Communication
Long polling redefines how we handle near-real-time communication in web applications, offering a refined approach when WebSockets or Server-Sent Events may be excessive. As software engineers, understanding long polling’s lifecycle—from memory allocation to kernel-assisted I/O—allows us to design more robust, efficient systems that scale elegantly across network conditions.
The Evolution Beyond Classic Request-Response
Traditional HTTP communication follows a simple dance: the client sends a request, and the server responds quickly. This works perfectly for fast, transactional exchanges—like loading a webpage or submitting a form.
But when a process takes longer—say, transcoding a video or waiting for a background job—the model breaks down. Short polling, where the client repeatedly asks, “Is it done yet?”, wastes bandwidth, CPU cycles, and server sockets.
Long polling solves this by turning that repetitive loop into an extended, single wait. It lets one connection remain open—handled efficiently by the kernel and OS networking stack—until there’s meaningful data to send back.
How Long Polling Actually Works
Let’s break down the long polling lifecycle visually:
sequenceDiagram
autonumber
Client->>Server: Request (poll start)
Server-->>Client: Acknowledgment (hold request)
Server-->>Server: Wait for event/task to complete
Server-->>Client: Send final response
Client->>Server: Reconnect for next event
Phase 1 — Client Initiation
We send a single request asking the server for updates. Instead of responding fast, the server places that connection in a wait state.
Phase 2 — Server Acknowledgment and Handling
In memory, the kernel marks this socket as open but idle. Thanks to non-blocking I/O (epoll, kqueue, or io_uring), waiting connections don’t consume heavy CPU or RAM—unlike threads in user space.
Phase 3 — Event Completion
When an event happens (e.g., a job completes or a new message arrives), the server writes to the waiting socket. The kernel wakes the associated process, transfers data to user space buffers, and the response travels back.
Phase 4 — Client Continuation
Once data is received, the client closes that request and immediately opens another one. From the user’s perspective, updates feel live.
Kernel and Memory Perspective
To truly appreciate long polling’s efficiency, it helps to peek into the OS level.
When multiple clients open long-lived connections, the kernel manages them via file descriptors, not separate threads. Using event-driven models (like epoll in Linux), the kernel efficiently handles thousands of open sockets in an event loop.
In Rust, frameworks such as Actix Web or Axum map beautifully onto this model: they leverage async I/O via tokio, where tasks pause at await points without blocking system threads.
For example, a simplified long-poll handler might look like this:
use axum::{extract::State, response::Json, Router};
use tokio::sync::oneshot;
use std::sync::Arc;
async fn long_poll_handler(State(state): State<Arc<AppState>>) -> Json<String> {
let (tx, rx) = oneshot::channel();
state.register_listener(tx);
// The request ‘waits’ asynchronously until a message is ready.
let msg = rx.await.unwrap_or_else(|_| "no update".to_string());
Json(msg)
}
This uses minimal system resources per connection because each long-poll call relinquishes control back to the executor, letting the kernel handle socket sleeping efficiently.
When to Choose Long Polling
Long polling excels in scenarios where:
- Tasks take several seconds or minutes.
- Real-time streaming isn’t critical.
- Server and client need minimal chatter.
Typical use cases include:
- Job queues and background task completion alerts
- Message notifications in collaborative tools
- File processing dashboards
By contrast, for continuous, high-frequency data streams (e.g., game state updates, real-time chat typing indicators), WebSockets or WebRTC are better suited.
Analogy: The Coffee Shop Queue
Think of long polling like ordering in a busy café.
With short polling, we’d annoy the barista every few seconds—“Is my coffee ready?”
Long polling, however, means placing one order and waiting calmly until our name is called. The barista (server) notifies us when it’s done, and we reconnect for the next task if desired.
That’s precisely how long polling optimizes both bandwidth and CPU load—it lets both sides breathe between messages.
Performance and Trade-Offs
Advantages
- Reduced Network Overhead – One open connection replaces thousands of repetitive requests.
- Efficient Server Load Handling – The kernel’s event queue efficiently manages long-lived sockets.
- Reliable Offline Handling – Clients can disconnect and reconnect with identifiers (“handles”) safely.
Disadvantages
- Not Real Real-Time – Updates wait on task completion.
- Increased Complexity – Requires managing connection lifecycles and timeouts.
- Scaling Challenges – Each open connection still consumes memory in TCP buffers and user-space session tracking.
Still, the efficiency gains vastly outweigh the complexity for many near-real-time apps.
Practical Engineering Tips
- Always use timeouts to avoid zombie connections.
- Keep response payloads small—just the needed delta.
- Consider HTTP/2 multiplexing, which reduces connection setup costs.
- Monitor via metrics like average wait time and number of concurrent open polls.
For Rust-based backends, using async runtimes ensures long-polling doesn’t block the executor, allowing thousands of concurrent waiting requests.
Final Thoughts
In our experience, long polling strikes a balance between responsiveness and practical resource use. By understanding how the kernel schedules sockets, how async runtimes defer CPU, and how memory buffers flow between layers, we can design APIs that feel real-time without requiring complex infrastructure.
If you’re building a web system where tasks take time but users need feedback fast, long polling remains a quiet, powerful ally.
Have questions or want help implementing long polling in your system?
Get in touch with us →