Facebook theories

Posted on August 25, 2013

I was observing the contents on the network with Chrome, trying to figure out how the giant omnipotent Facebook does it.

Well, it isn’t all that complicated, though it still seems quite hackish in my opinion.

It does give insight into how these work

  • Page generation
  • Messaging
  • Notification
  • Live updates

Note, that the following are just theories based on my personal observations, and may not represent fact. These will likely become invalid in the future, but for now, I hope these can be used as a resource to think about.

Page Generation

The server is in complete control. HTML is still rendered on the server side, and then sent within JSON to the client for content rendered after the initial page request.

This suggests that there is little versioning to do on the client side.


  • New features are not arbitrarily public and can be done easily on a user level, without the need of creating more public client builds. This allows for easier silent beta testing. The clients can also catch any errors, report them back, and be given an older stable version.
  • Client is still dumb, less room for bugs by mismatched logic between the client and the server.
  • All relevant data is sent over the wire, so there won’t be need to have additional requests if the server makes an incorrect assumption about local cache.


  • More gateways need to be maintained with regards to the API. Though technically what they have currently can be built on top of their API.
  • More data has to be sent over the wire, regardless of local cache. (This is a dual problem and solution)

Notification, Live Updates, Messaging

This group is bunched together because they all ride on the same mechanism.

It seems that Facebook has implemented a simplex (meaning one way) transmission line for their updates to the client. They seem to send a JSON Stream, which is a long-lived (60 seconds) HTTP request, which uses Transfer-Encoding: chunked. By sending chunks, which are sections of data prepended by a hexadecimal count of how many bytes to receive, a chunk-aware XHR library may read the chunks individually instead of waiting for the entire request to come through.

Each chunk seems to contain what seems to be a command to execute, and the data to execute on that command.

Ignoring the for(;;); that prepends each response, the response that comes when no activity occurs is

for (;;); {"t":"heartbeat"}

The above occurs on the channel pulling.

As stated before, there’s a command, such as heartbeat and continue with other parameters provided, namely a seq parameter, which is important later. Though, also notice, that we seem to have data wrapped up for a message within this. It is not coincidental that the buddy list got updated during sequence 703.

Let’s take a closer look at it.


We can see that the type, t, is a message, msg. It states that it will take place likely in the next sequence, seq, and then the message contents, ms, state that the type is for buddylist_overlay.

I can only assume then, that the buddy list overlay is then notified with the other parameters that are received, namely overlay. I cannot deduce what the parameters are inside of that, and it is not of further interest to me at this time.

On other requests, there seems to be a different schema, though similar in how it is parsed.

for (;;);{"__ar":1,"payload":{"time":1377473850000,"notifications":{"no_change":1}},"bootloadable":{},"ixData":[]}

Or pretty printed and the redundant prefix removed…




Now this is interesting.

The payload is especially filled with more data than I’d want for things like the buddy list updates. This coincides with my previous observations of how facebook makes no judgment on the client’s awareness.

Though I do not know what to make of __ar, bootloadable, and ixData. I am not interested enough to investigate that.

So, now that we have two established schemas, one for live updates, and one that comes by client demand, we can say that the application comes in two tiers of requests.

The primary tier includes the server and the user. The user is not the same as the client, which is just a dummy application.

This has not been verified, but to simplify my observation, let’s assume that a click on some element causes something like


Let’s then suppose that there is a mapping of the types, be it friend_request or heartbeat, which then issues requests to the server.

Those requests respond with the second schema and I can only assume that the interested component would handle what’s in the payload.

But that’s not what is so interesting to me here.

What is interesting is not what I found in the response contents, but rather the request headers and the response headers.

Request Query String:


I replaced my user ID with 123456 and my client id with deadbeef since it seems to be in hexadecimal.

Let’s assume that the clientid is similar to a session, and that Facebook allows multiple sessions. For example, you can have Facebook open on your desktop and laptop. They have the same user, but different clientids.

I assume that the channel prefix p_ signifies that it relates to a user.

This is also an assumption, that the partition is calculable based on the user id and the number of partitions available. This partition number is also kept in the cookie. Let’s also assume than on partition topology change, that the user is commanded to change to another partition, and the value in the cookie is updated. The partition number may also take into account locational factors, but for now, let’s assume that spatial information is not taken into account for the sake of simplicity.

The notions of partitions make sense for a significantly large system with many concurrent users connected simultaneously. If there were no sense of partitions, then each server which sends events to the client will have to be made aware of every single event, thus the same as there being only one partition total.

I propose the following logic for channels and partitions. If the channel does not belong on the requested partition, then the connection ends immediately with information that directs the client to the correct partition.

What we have left.. is the importance of the clientid and seq. The other values will be disregarded for analysis.

Every pull request ends with a continuation of the logically next sequence seq+1. This suggests that events will be enqueued on the next sequence between the disconnect and reconnect.

A client cannot request a previous seq entry, when attempting to do so, it will provide an error message, and a new seq to use which is current for the given clientid. seqs are not globally unique, and are not shared between clientids.

This seems to suggest the following strategy.

Or.. in some ugly haskelly pseudocode

-- | Forward declare some functions that figure
-- the things out.
user2Chan :: UserId -> Channel
chan2Partition :: Channel -> IO Partition
-- ^ Partitions might be dynamic, so make it impure
-- and use IO.

data Event = Event
    { evUsers   :: [UserId]
    , evDate    :: UTCTime 
    , evData    :: a
    -- ^ Polymorphic type 'a'

sendEvent :: Event -> IO ()
sendEvent e = do
    eventTuples <- mapM mkTuple (evUsers e)
    mapM sendSingularEvent eventTuples
        mkTuple :: (ToJSON a) 
                => User -> IO (Channel, Partition, a)
        mkTuple u = do
            let chan = user2Chan u
            partition <- chan2Partition chan
            return (chan, partition, evData e)
            -- ^ A reminder to non-haskellers...
            -- return isn't the same as in other
            -- languages. Here, it is wrapping
            -- up the value (a, b, c) into an
            -- IO (a, b, c).

sendSingularEvent :: (ToJSON a) => (Channel, Partition, a) -> IO ()
-- ^ Forward declared function that takes a tuple
-- and delivers it to the relevant server.
-- Let's assume now that we are elsewhere in another
-- process, within one single partition.

data Seq = Seq 
    { seqId :: Int
    , seqExpire :: UTCTime

getClientIdsForChan :: Channel -> IO [ClientId]
getCurrentSeq :: ClientId -> IO Seq
getSeqToSendOn :: Seq -> IO Int
sendSingleEvent :: (UserId, Int, Value) -> IO ()

-- | In this process, the following function gets called
-- to handle requests.
receiveSingularEvent :: (ToJSON a) => (Channel, Partition, a) -> IO ()
receiveSingularEvent (c, _, v) = do
    --                   ^
    --                   |
    -- Since this we assume we are on
    -- the correct partition, let's ignore
    -- the Partition entry in the tuple
    -- we receive.

    clients <- getClientIdsForChan c
    tuples <- mapM mkTuple clients
    mapM sendSingleEvent tuples
    -- ^ Sends the message over the wire
    -- to the final receiver.
        mkTuple client = do
            seq <- getCurrentSeq client
            toSend <- getSeqToSendOn seq
            -- ^ gives the next logical seq id
            -- if the expire times are in the
            -- past or too close.
            return (client, toSend, v)

Yeah, that’s a lot of code and such, plenty of it is just theory, and hardly any of it implemented. But I use haskell, since it’s type system tells the story of what will happen, very easily.

A note for non-haskellers, mapM applies stuff to things that respond with Monadic actions, in this case, an IO action.

The code itself isn’t too complicated, but essentially the cool thing here is that the topology of Facebook is designed to be scalable.

Overall, Facebook’s mentality seems to be…

If we think they will use the data, send it to them.

Bandwidth is cheap, latency is not.

The key word there is latency. It directly affects the perceived user experience. If the client has to expand every single resource as it comes down and request the parts it needs, although less bandwidth will be consumed, that also means that the client needs to have more logic to assemble the data and spend its time waiting for more data to fill the gaps for what it does not know.

Then by this flow of logic, we can say that if you wish to save more bandwidth, you have to pay with higher latency.

It would be inconceivable to send the entire application state to the server to figure out what to send and what not to send. Also keeping record of that on the server side will increase the time spent on the server to obtain the current state, lazily built from the client. In the end, keeping such state on the server, for the sake of bandwidth is not worth it, and is a pain to even imagine.


The server builds everything the client sees. No features are accidentally sent to the user for them to dissect and manipulate.

Facebook is scalable, they’ve overcome that problem. However, in my humble opinion, at the cost of what the client can do.

They use multiple tiers of partitioning to put new content on the screen of the user.

Facebook has an intuitive system, which seems to depend more on persistent data, instead of also live data, to subscribe to arbitrary elements that happen to be on screen. Since there is not a duplex, two way, transmission, such a capability would be costly to do.

This has left me pondering what it means for my own projects.