Is it possible to view an account wide “Service Map” or “Topology View” showing all Workers, Durable

Is it possible to view an account wide “Service Map” or “Topology View” showing all Workers, Durable Objects, and their bindings/dependencies in the dashboard?

Currently, each individual Worker page in the dashboard displays its bindings and dependencies (Durable Objects, KV, R2, etc.), which is helpful, but there’s no system-wide view that connects them all.

MMarak Is it possible to view an account wide “Service Map” or “Topology View” showing ...

lambrospetrou•10/8/25, 10:01 AM

I don't think this exists right now, although it's been discussed a couple of times.

Llambrospetrou I don't think this exists right now, although it's been discussed a couple of ti...

MarakOP•10/8/25, 10:21 AM

With many Worker and Durable Object classes, it’s challenging to get a high-level picture of how everything fits together.

MMarak With many Worker and Durable Object classes, it’s challenging to get a high-leve...

lambrospetrou•10/8/25, 11:10 AM

The UI gets a lot of love lately, so I am sure (or I hope) this will get some attention at some point as well.

Nick•10/8/25, 1:48 PM

Is there any way to access the request ID of the worker that called the durable object from inside the handler somehow? Without having to manually plumb it in.

NNick Is there any way to access the request ID of the worker that called the durable ...

Larry•10/8/25, 2:12 PM

Are you using RPC for the call?

NNick Is there any way to access the request ID of the worker that called the durable ...

Larry•10/8/25, 2:13 PM

Where is the request ID coming from in the Worker? Headers on an HTTP Request?

Ivan•10/8/25, 2:49 PM

I am trying to create a worker with a durable object attached via Terraform. However, I keep on getting “Cannot create binding for class 'Aggregator' that is not exported by the script.” However, I do export it:

import { DurableObject } from 'cloudflare:workers';
export class Aggregator extends DurableObject { /* ... */ }
export default { async fetch() { /* ... */ } }

import { DurableObject } from 'cloudflare:workers';
export class Aggregator extends DurableObject { /* ... */ }
export default { async fetch() { /* ... */ } }

Is there something that is typically missed?

LLarry Are you using RPC for the call?

Nick•10/8/25, 2:52 PM

yes using RPC for the call. The requestID is the one that we get from the cloudflare header, which also ends up in the observability logs somehow

Ivan•10/8/25, 3:10 PM

Just maybe putting Terraform aside for a second, when I go via the UI and try to bind, it does not seem to see any durable objects exported in the script. I guess there is some misunderstanding from my side. What is going on here? How does one create durable objects?

IIvan Just maybe putting Terraform aside for a second, when I go via the UI and try to...

1984 Ford Laser•10/8/25, 10:32 PM

Have you added the binding to wrangler config?

IIvan Just maybe putting Terraform aside for a second, when I go via the UI and try to...

MarakOP•10/9/25, 12:15 AM

You'll want to ensure that the Durable Object class is exported in your main workerfile

// Export Durable Object
export { MyDurable } from './durables/MyDurable.js';

// Export Durable Object
export { MyDurable } from './durables/MyDurable.js';

You also need to configure the

wrangler

wrangler

config file in the project to have the binding.

  "durable_objects": {
    "bindings": [
      {
        "name": "MY_DURABLE",
        "class_name": "MyDurable"
      }
   ]

  "durable_objects": {
    "bindings": [
      {
        "name": "MY_DURABLE",
        "class_name": "MyDurable"
      }
   ]

xormask•10/9/25, 12:32 AM

I have a question about durable object pricing with RpcTarget. If my durable object has returned an RpcTarget (allowing me to amortize multiple calls within the same RPC session) am I correct to assume that while the RpcTarget stub is alive (hasn't been disposed of), the durable object must be actively running and billing me? I have a worker that makes multiple calls to a durable object, but between each call there's slow calls to an external service. If the durable object will be billing me for the whole rpc session, my guess is it would be cheaper to break into multiple shorter rpc sessions. Appreciate any clarifications!

Avi•10/9/25, 2:48 AM

what can be done to prevent a malicious actor from sending too many websocket messages to a durableobject? there seems to be some internal queue of incoming messages that's getting flooded (even before the requests reach my DO's code)

AAvi what can be done to prevent a malicious actor from sending too many websocket me...

MarakOP•10/9/25, 2:59 AM

You could try the Firewall API and create a new rule, https://developers.cloudflare.com/api/resources/firewall/subresources/rules/methods/create/

Cloudflare API | Firewall › Rules › Create Firewall Rules

Interact with Cloudflare's products and services via the Cloudflare API

MarakOP•10/9/25, 2:59 AM

What malicious actor is causing the problem @Avi?

MMarak You could try the Firewall API and create a new rule, https://developers.cloudfl...

Avi•10/9/25, 3:01 AM

this is apparently deprecated? to be clear the issue is the frequency of sending of traffic. i'm looking for a ratelimit, not to block a particular actor indefiniteyl

MMarak What malicious actor is causing the problem @Avi?

Avi•10/9/25, 3:01 AM

it's a videogame, so people who are looking to cheat

AAvi this is apparently deprecated? to be clear the issue is the frequency of sending...

MarakOP•10/9/25, 3:02 AM

Thanks. Yes. The new API appears to be: https://developers.cloudflare.com/ruleset-engine/rulesets-api/create/

We are using the legacy API in production at the moment. Idea is to make API call to CF to dynamicaly manage firewall rules to prevent connection from happening in the first place.

MMarak Thanks. Yes. The new API appears to be: https://developers.cloudflare.com/rulese...

Avi•10/9/25, 3:03 AM

right, i wouldn't want to prevent the connection entirely

Avi•10/9/25, 3:03 AM

just to say, limit the number of messages being sent to X per Y amount of time

MarakOP•10/9/25, 3:03 AM

RateLimit?

Avi•10/9/25, 3:04 AM

yes

MarakOP•10/9/25, 3:04 AM

There is a new built-in rate limiter here: https://developers.cloudflare.com/workers/runtime-apis/bindings/rate-limit/

We have custom RateLimit durable object here which has configurable locking settings

Avi•10/9/25, 3:05 AM

ooo that's cool, hadn't seen this before. although i doubt it would work for websocket messages

MarakOP•10/9/25, 3:05 AM

you can make a new DurableObject instance that acts a rate limiter, its very easy

MarakOP•10/9/25, 3:06 AM

and use custom business logic from your app

Avi•10/9/25, 3:06 AM

i don't follow. you're saying create a second DurableObject?

MarakOP•10/9/25, 3:06 AM

something like:

import { DurableObject } from 'cloudflare:workers';

let LOCK_TIMEOUT = 5000; // 5 seconds
let RATE_LIMIT_WINDOW = 200; // 200 milliseconds, now using stamina in cast system

// UserLock.js
export default class RateLimitkDurableObject extends DurableObject {
  constructor(state, env) {
    super(state, env);
    this.state = state;
    this.env = env;
  }

  async acquireLock() {

    // Check if user is locked
    const isLocked = await this.state.storage.get("isLocked");
    if (isLocked) {
      // check lastInteraction
      const lastInteraction = (await this.state.storage.get("lastInteraction")) || 0;
      if (Date.now() - lastInteraction < LOCK_TIMEOUT) {
        throw new Error("User is currently locked");
      }
    }

    // Check rate limit (e.g., 1 request per 15 seconds)
    const lastInteraction = (await this.state.storage.get("lastInteraction")) || 0;
    const now = Date.now();
    const rateLimitWindow = RATE_LIMIT_WINDOW;
    if (now - lastInteraction < rateLimitWindow) {
      let timeLeft = Math.ceil((rateLimitWindow - (now - lastInteraction)) / 1000);
      throw new Error(`Please try again in ${timeLeft} seconds.`);
    }

    // Acquire lock and update last interaction time
    await this.state.storage.put("isLocked", true);
    await this.state.storage.put("lastInteraction", now);

    return { status: "Lock acquired" };
  }

  async releaseLock() {
    // Release lock
    console.log("Releasing lock for user");
    await this.state.storage.put("isLocked", false);
    return { status: "Lock released" };
  }
}

import { DurableObject } from 'cloudflare:workers';

let LOCK_TIMEOUT = 5000; // 5 seconds
let RATE_LIMIT_WINDOW = 200; // 200 milliseconds, now using stamina in cast system

// UserLock.js
export default class RateLimitkDurableObject extends DurableObject {
  constructor(state, env) {
    super(state, env);
    this.state = state;
    this.env = env;
  }

  async acquireLock() {

    // Check if user is locked
    const isLocked = await this.state.storage.get("isLocked");
    if (isLocked) {
      // check lastInteraction
      const lastInteraction = (await this.state.storage.get("lastInteraction")) || 0;
      if (Date.now() - lastInteraction < LOCK_TIMEOUT) {
        throw new Error("User is currently locked");
      }
    }

    // Check rate limit (e.g., 1 request per 15 seconds)
    const lastInteraction = (await this.state.storage.get("lastInteraction")) || 0;
    const now = Date.now();
    const rateLimitWindow = RATE_LIMIT_WINDOW;
    if (now - lastInteraction < rateLimitWindow) {
      let timeLeft = Math.ceil((rateLimitWindow - (now - lastInteraction)) / 1000);
      throw new Error(`Please try again in ${timeLeft} seconds.`);
    }

    // Acquire lock and update last interaction time
    await this.state.storage.put("isLocked", true);
    await this.state.storage.put("lastInteraction", now);

    return { status: "Lock acquired" };
  }

  async releaseLock() {
    // Release lock
    console.log("Releasing lock for user");
    await this.state.storage.put("isLocked", false);
    return { status: "Lock released" };
  }
}

Ivan•10/9/25, 6:39 AM

When sharding a durable object, if one instance sets an alarm, is it guaranteed that the same instance will be invoked by the alarm?

Sstickman Hi @Larry had a question since you mention the fire and forget approach for maki...

ALECKS•10/9/25, 1:34 PM

You can configure that timeout to be longer, i forget the exact numbers, maybe 5 or 10 min? If you have jobs that need even more than that, then DOs alone aren't the right thing you might want to look into Containers, that's currently the only way to run long jobs in CF

Sstickman Hi @Larry had a question since you mention the fire and forget approach for maki...

Larry•10/9/25, 2:11 PM

You fire and forget to offload it to another DO whose only purpose is to send fetch requests, await responses, and send them back to the originating DO. The trick is to pass in the id of the original DO so this RequestProxy DO knows who to dial up again once it gets the response. Under load, this DO never hibernates but it's only one DO not all of your others.

I'm in the process of open sourcing a lot of pieces of our stack right now. The first drop is going to be a testing module that works great with WebSockets and simulates browser behavior (cookies, origin, etc.). After that, I may port our RequestProxy DO to the open source project. I'll come back here once it's published. Any day now for the testing, rpc, and utils modules. Just in the final steps of documentation editing.

1984 Ford Laser•10/9/25, 9:42 PM

Would this work:
DO A is acting as a WebSocket client, not using hibernation. DO B connects to DO A via WebSocket, DO A acts as the server and DO B as the client. Will DO B be able to hibernate, while A stays pinned to memory? In my scenario I'm already using DO A as a WS server for a different service but I want to direct data from A to B and using WS feels the best way to do it if B will hibernate

11984 Ford Laser Would this work: DO A is acting as a WebSocket client, not using hibernation. DO...

Brayden•10/9/25, 10:51 PM

DO websocket connections as clients can't hibernate, only as servers at the moment.

BBrayden DO websocket connections as clients can't hibernate, only as servers at the mome...

1984 Ford Laser•10/9/25, 11:03 PM

So in this instance I'd be better off having DO B act as the server yeah?

Larry•10/9/25, 11:56 PM

For DO to DO, wouldn't RPC be a better choice?

LLarry For DO to DO, wouldn't RPC be a better choice?

1984 Ford Laser•10/9/25, 11:59 PM

Yeah it would be, mostly looking to reduce request costs

11984 Ford Laser Yeah it would be, mostly looking to reduce request costs

Larry•10/10/25, 12:01 AM

I haven't done any of this myself but I believe that RPC has the concept of a "session". I don't think you pay for requests during a "session". I also believe that sessions timeout though so I'm guessing you have to sense when that happens and create a new session.

LLarry I haven't done any of this myself but I believe that RPC has the concept of a "s...

1984 Ford Laser•10/10/25, 12:04 AM

The session you talk about would be related to stubs and RpcTarget right? I don't like having to think about whether a new stub needs to be made and stuff. Currently, DO to DO RPC requires at least 2 requests per RPC call. If I use websockets, I make one request to connect, then I can send 20 messages for the price of 1

11984 Ford Laser The session you talk about would be related to stubs and RpcTarget right? I don'...

Larry•10/10/25, 12:18 AM

Fair enough. I still use fetch between DOs. Someday I'll start playing with RPC, RpcTarget, etc.

Peps•10/10/25, 12:55 AM

hm?

vcc•10/10/25, 2:26 AM

Did workers release a new version yesterday? My service got more errors than last full week.

11984 Ford Laser The session you talk about would be related to stubs and RpcTarget right? I don'...

lambrospetrou•10/10/25, 6:36 AM

Currently, DO to DO RPC requires at least 2 requests per RPC call

What do you mean 2 requests per RPC call? There should only be one round trip for a normal RPC call.

Llambrospetrou > Currently, DO to DO RPC requires at least 2 requests per RPC call What do you ...

1984 Ford Laser•10/10/25, 7:46 AM

Sorry I was including the call to the Worker as well

blindChicken•10/10/25, 1:35 PM

I'm seeing some weird behavior

happening in my Durable Objects "Live" logs. I'm seeing requests for an unrelated worker, that is a worker in a different project? It's a project that gets a lot of traffic compared to others, so I'm note sure if it is showing the traffic for all my workers or not. But there is a problem!

Alex Dahl•10/11/25, 7:03 PM

Has anyone else seen issues with ios 26 websockets and connecting to durable objects? I encountered this issue with one of my users. I think it might be an Apple issue, but I have only seen it once so far. They were using private relay

Apple forum thread: https://discussions.apple.com/thread/256142477?sortBy=rank

Lulu•10/12/25, 6:00 AM

I'm a little confused about how PITR works. The API says

getCurrentBookmark()

getCurrentBookmark()

and

getBookmarkForTime()

getBookmarkForTime()

return a

Promise<string>

Promise<string>

, but the example right below it shows it being used without a promise:

let now = new Date();
// restore to 2 days ago
let bookmark = ctx.storage.getBookmarkForTime(now - 2);
ctx.storage.onNextSessionRestoreBookmark(bookmark);

let now = new Date();
// restore to 2 days ago
let bookmark = ctx.storage.getBookmarkForTime(now - 2);
ctx.storage.onNextSessionRestoreBookmark(bookmark);

Assuming it returns a promise, how can I guarantee the bookmark I get is accurate?

let bookmark = await getCurrentBookmark();
// stuff may happen here while it is awaiting
this.sql.exec(/* omitted */);

let bookmark = await getCurrentBookmark();
// stuff may happen here while it is awaiting
this.sql.exec(/* omitted */);

geg•10/12/25, 6:31 AM

I can't help but read it as pain in the rear

Lulu•10/12/25, 6:34 AM

Looking up the workerd codebase, I found this:

// Get a bookmark for the current state of the database. Note that since this is async, the
// bookmark will include any writes in the current atomic batch, including writes that are
// performed after this call begins. It could also include concurrent writes that haven't happened
// yet, unless blockConcurrencyWhile() is used to prevent them.
kj::Promise<kj::String> getCurrentBookmark();

// Get a bookmark for the current state of the database. Note that since this is async, the
// bookmark will include any writes in the current atomic batch, including writes that are
// performed after this call begins. It could also include concurrent writes that haven't happened
// yet, unless blockConcurrencyWhile() is used to prevent them.
kj::Promise<kj::String> getCurrentBookmark();

But it is hard to tell what "concurrent writes that haven't happened yet" means. Is it saying after the callback returns, the bookmark will be accurate?

Harrison Lo•10/12/25, 6:50 PM

I wonder if each Durable Object will come with its own R2 binding too in the future