I'm trying to implement mainline dht. While implementing I found it easier to use multithreading to handle requests and send requests at the same time. But it's impossible for a singular port to both send and receive at the same time. There's two solutions I thought of, one of those would be using different ports for receiving and sending, however in mainline dht it seems like whenever you send a request, nodes will remember you based on the port you send the request on. Is it possible to still implement a different port for receiving and sending?
The DHT requires that the same port is used for sending and receiving.
But it's impossible for a singular port to both send and receive at the same time.
Sockets are thread-safe, you can issue send and receive syscalls to the same socket at the same time.
If you want to load-balance reading across multiple threads you can open multiple sockets bound to the same port via SO_REUSEPORT but that shouldn't be necessary because any regular DHT implementation will only see a dozen packets per second, perhaps with short burts into the thousands, something that a single core can comfortably handle.
Related
I am in a process of learning and trying to use the RTP/RTCP protocol. My situation is that there is 1 to n streamers and 1 (or potentially 1 to m if needed) receiver(s), but in a way that the streamers themselves do not know about each other (they cannot directly due to technical reasons, such as different network, limited bandwidth, etc...). So it is more like multiple unicast sessions, but the receiver actually knows about them all, collects data from all of them, it is just the senders do not know about each other .
Now reading about the protocol, it seems to me that huge portion of it is related to sending some feedback, collision detections, and so on. So I have doubts, is RTP is really applicable in this case? Is is already used in this way somewhere?
Seems to me it is still beneficial to collect statistic about data transfer that RTP provides (data sent, loss, times, etc...), it just feels the most of the protocol is sort of left out...
Also I have one additional question, going through the various RTP libraries, they all assume that sender will also open ports for receiving RTP/RTCP data, does RTP forbid use of one way communication? I mean application that would only stream the data, not expecting to receive anything back. The libraries (e.g. ccRTP) seem to assume both way communication only...
RTCP is the protocol that provides statistics. The stream receiver (client) will send stats to the sender (server) via RTCP. I don't believe the client will get any statistic reports from the server.
There's nothing wrong with a single client receiving multiple unicast sessions from various servers.
RTP requires two way communication during the setup process. Once setup is complete and the play cmd is sent, it is mostly one way. The exception are the "keep alive" packets that must be sent to the server periodically (usually every 60 seconds or so) to keep the stream going. The exact timeout value is sent to the client during the setup process.
But if you implement your own RTP, there's nothing stopping you from having the server send the stream continuously without any feedback from the client. Basically it would be implementing an infinite timeout value.
You can read about all the details in the spec: RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications
I need to do the following:
multiple clients connecting to the SAME remote port
each of the clients open 2 different sockets, one is a PUB/SUB, the
other is a ROUTER/DEALER ( the server can occasionally send back to client heartbeats, different server related information ).
I am completely lost whether it can be done in ZeroMQ or not.
Obviously if I can use 2 remote ports, that is not an issue, but I fail
to understand if my setup can be achieved with some kind of envelope
usage in ZeroMQ.
Can it be done?
Thanks,
Update:
To clarify what I wish to achieve.
Multiple clients can communicate with the server
Clients operate on request-response basis mostly(on one socket)
Clients create a session socket, which means that whenever this
type of socket is created, a separate worker thread needs to be created
and from that time on the client communicates with this worker thread
with regards to requests processing, e.g. server thread must not block
the connection of other clients when dealing with the request of one client
However clients can receive occasional messages from the worker thread with regards to heartbeats of the worker.
Update2:
Actually I could sort it out. What I did:
identify clients obviously, so ROUTER/DEALER is used, e.g. clients
are indeed dealers, hence async processing is provided
clients send messages to the one and only local port, where the router sits
router peeks into messages (kinda the lazy pirate example), checks whether a new client comes in; if yes it offloads to a separate thread, and connects the separate thread with an internal "inproc:" socket
router obviously polls for the frontend and all connected clients' backends and sends messages back and forth.
What bugs me is that it is an overkill if I compare this with a "regular" socket solution, where I could have connected the client with the worker thread DIRECTLY (e.g. worker thread could recv from the socket opened by the client directly), hence I could spare the routing completely.
What am I missing?
There was a discussion on the ZeroMQ mailing list recently about multiplexing multiple services on one TCP socket. The proposed solutions is essentially what you implemented.
The discussion also mentions Malamute with its brokers which essentially provides a framework based on ZeroMQ which also provides the functionality you need. I haven't had the time to look into it myself, but it looks promising.
When using ØMQ socket of type SUB, one may use
sub_socket.setsockopt_string(zmq.SUBSCRIBE, 'topic')
Is the same possible also with REP sockets, allowing a worker to only handle specific topics, leaving other topics to different workers?
I'm very afraid that it is impossible, quoting http://learning-0mq-with-pyzmq.readthedocs.org/en/latest/pyzmq/patterns/pubsub.html:
In the current versions of ØMQ, filtering happens at the subscriber side, not the publisher side.
But still, I'm asking if there is some trick to achieve that, because such a functionality would have a huge impact on my infrastructure.
Nope. Can I assume that you've got a REQ or DEALER server socket that sends work to REP workers, that then respond with the completed work back to the server? And that you're looking for a way to make your server communicate to specific clients rather than just pass out tasks in a round-robin fashion?
Can't do it. See here, those sockets are only, always, round-robin. If you want to communicate to a specific client, you must either have a socket that talks only to that client, or you must start the communication from the client (switch your socket pairing so the worker requests whatever work its ready for, and the server responds with it, and then the worker creates a new request with the completed work). Doing anything else gets much more complicated.
I have no experience with sockets nor multiplayer programming.
I need to code a multiplayer mode for a game I made in c++. It's a puzzle game but the game mode will not be turn-based, it's more like cooperative.
I decided to use UDP, so I've read some tutorials, and all the samples I find decribes how to create a client that sends data and a server that receives it.
My game will be played by two players, and both will send and receive data to/from the other.
Do I need to code a client and a server?
Should I use the same socket to send and receive?
Should I send and receive data in the same port?
Thanks, I'm kind of lost.
Read how the masters did it:
http://www.bluesnews.com/abrash/chap70.shtml
Read the code:
git clone git://quake.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/quake/quake
Open one UDP socket and use sendto and recvfrom. The following file contains the functions for the network client.
quake/libs/net/nc/net_udp.c
UDP_OpenSocket calls socket (PF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, IPPROTO_UDP)
NET_SendPacket calls sendto
NET_GetPacket calls recvfrom
Do I need to code a client and a server?
It depends. For a two player game, with both computers on the same LAN, or both on the open Internet, you could simply have the two computers send packets to each other directly.
On the other hand, if you want your game to work across the Internet, when one or both players are behind a NAT and/or firewall, then you have the problem that the NAT and/or firewall will probably filter out the other player's incoming UDP packets, unless the local player goes to the trouble of setting up port-forwarding in their firewall... something that many users are not willing (or able) to do. In that case, you might be better off running a public server that both clients can connect to, which forwards data from one client to another. (You might also consider using TCP instead of UDP in that case, at least as a fallback, since TCP streams are in general likely to have fewer issues with firewalls than UDP packets)
Should I use the same socket to send and receive?
Should I send and receive data in the same port?
You don't have to, but you might as well -- there's no downside to using just a single socket and a single port, and it will simplify your code a bit.
Note that this answer is all about using UDP sockets. If you change your mind to use TCP sockets, it will almost all be irrelevant.
Do I need to code a client and a server?
Since you've chosen to to use UDP (a fair choice if your data isn't really important and benefits more from lower latency than reliable communication), you don't have much of a choice here: a "server" is a piece of code for receiving packets from the network, and your "client" is for sending packets into the network. UDP doesn't provide any mechanism for the server to communicate to the client (unlike TCP which establishes a 2 way socket). In this case, if you want to have two way communication between your two hosts, they'll each need server and client code.
Now, you could choose to use UDP broadcasts, where both clients listen and send on the broadcast address (usually 192.168.1.255 for home networks, but it can be anything and is configurable). This is slightly more complex to code for, but it would eliminate the need for client/server configuration and may be seen as more plug 'n play for your users. However, note that this will not work over the Internet.
Alternatively, you can create a hybrid method where hosts are discovered by broadcasting and listening for broadcasts, but then once the hosts are chosen you use host to host unicast sockets. You could provide fallback to manually specify network settings (remote host/port for each) so that it can work over the Internet.
Finally, you could provide a true "server" role that all clients connect to. The server would then know which clients connected to it and would in turn try to connect back to them. This is a server at a higher level, not at the socket level. Both hosts still need to have packet sending (client) and receiving (server) code.
Should I use the same socket to send and receive?
Well, since you're using UDP, you don't really have a choice. UDP doesn't establish any kind of persistent connection that they can communicate back and forth over. See the above point for more details.
Should I send and receive data in the same port?
In light of the above question, your question may be better phrased "should each host listen on the same port?". I think that would certainly make your coding easier, but it doesn't have to. If you don't and you opt for the 3rd option of the first point, you'll need a "connect back to me on this port" datafield in the "client's" first message to the server.
I have clients that need to all connect to a single server process. I am using UDP discovery for the clients to find the server. I have the client and server exchange IP address and port number, so that a TCP/IP connection can be established after completion of the discovery. This way the packet size is kept small. I see that this could be done in one of two ways using UDP:
Each client sends out its own multicast message in search of the server, which the server then responds to. The client can repeat sending this multicast message in regular intervals (in the case that the server is down) until the server responds.
The server sends out a multicast message beacon at regular intervals. The clients subscribe to the multicast group and in this way receives the server's multicast message and complete the discovery.
In 1. if there are many clients then initially there would be many multicast messages transmitted (one from each client). Only the server would subscribe and receive the multicast messages from the clients. Once the server has responded to the client, the client ceases to send out the multicast message. Once all clients have completed their discovery of the server no further multicast messages are transmitted on the network. If however, the server is down, then each client would be sending out a multicast message beacon in intervals until the server is back up and can respond.
In 2. only the server would submit a multicast message beacon in regular intervals. This message would end up getting routed to all clients that are subscribed to the multicast group. Once the clients receive the packet the client's UDP listening socket gets closed and they are no longer subscribed to the multicast group. However, the server must continue to send the multicast beacon, so that new clients can discover it. It would continue sending out the beacon at regular intervals regardless of whether any clients are out their requiring discovery or not.
So, I see pros and cons either way. It seems to me that #1 would result in heavier load initially, but this load eventually reduces down to zero. In #2 the server would continue sending out a beacon forever.
UDP and multicast is a fairly new topic to me, so I am interested in finding out which would be the preferred approach and which would result in less network load.
I've used option #2 in the past several times. It works well for simple network topologies. We did see some throughput problems when UDP datagrams exceeded the Ethernet MTU resulting in a large amount of fragmentation. The largest problem that we have seen is that multicast discovery breaks down in larger topologies since many routers are configured to block multicast traffic.
The issue that Greg alluded to is rather important to consider when you are designing your protocol suite. As soon as you move beyond simple network topologies, you will have to find solutions for address translation, IP spoofing, and a whole host of other issues related to the handoff from your discovery layer to your communications layer. Most of them have to do specifically with how your server identifies itself and ensuring that the identification is something that a client can make use of.
If I could do it over again (how many times have we uttered this phrase), I would look for standards-based discovery mechanisms that fit the bill and start solving the other protocol suite problems. The last thing that you really want to do is come up with a really good discovery scheme that breaks the week after you deploy it because of some unforeseen network topology. Google service discovery for a starting list. I personally tend towards DNS-SD but there are a lot of other options available.
I would recommend method #2, as it is likely (depending on the application) that you will have far more clients than you will servers. By having the server send out a beacon, you only send one packet every so often, rather than one packet for each client.
The other benefit of this method, is that it makes it easier for the clients to determine when a new server becomes available, or when an existing server leaves the network, as they don't have to maintain a connection to each server, or keep polling each server, to find out.
Both are equally viable methods.
The argument for method #1 would be that in normal principle, clients initiate requests, and servers listen and respond to them.
The argument for method #2 would be that the point of multicast is so that one host can send a packet and it can be received by many clients (one-to-many), so it's meant to be the reverse of #1.
OK, as I think about this I'm actually drawn to #2, server-initiated beacon. The problem with #1 is that let's say clients broadcast beacons, and they hook up with the server, but the server either goes offline or changes its IP address.
When the server is back up and sends its first beacon, all the clients will be notified at the same time to reconnect, and your entire system is back up immediately. With #1, all of the clients would have to individually realize that the server is gone, and they would all start multicasting at the same time, until connected back with the server. If you had 1000 clients and 1 server your network load would literally be 1000x greater than method #2.
I know these messages are most likely small, and 1000 packets at a time is nothing to a UDP network, but just from a design standpoint #2 feels better.
Edit: I feel like I'm developing a split-personality disorder here, but just thought of a powerful point of why #1 would be an advantage... If you ever wanted to implement some sort of natural load balancing or scaling with multiple servers, design #1 works well for this. That way the first "available" server can respond to the client's beacon and connect to it, as opposed to #2 where all the clients jump to the beaconing server.
Your option #2 has a big limitation in that it assumes that the server can communicate more or less directly with every possible client. Depending on the exact network architecture of your operational system, this may not be the case. For example, you may be depending that all routers and VPN software and WANs and NATs and whatever other things people connect networks together with, can actually handle the multicast beacon packets.
With #1, you are assuming that the clients can send a UDP packet to the server. This is an entirely reasonable expectation, especially considering the very next thing the client will do is make a TCP connection to the same server.
If the server goes down and the client wants to find out when it's back up, be sure to use exponential backoff otherwise you will take the network down with a packet storm someday!