I'm having issues understanding what socket types are negatively impacted in the event that TCP must try retransmmitting messages.
We have a distributed system that uses a combination of inprocess and TCP connections for internal processes and external devices and applications. My concern is that in the event there is a significant traffic that causes latency and dropped packets, that a TCP retransmit will cause delay in the system.
What I'd like to avoid is an application that has messages compile in a queue waiting to be sent (via a single ZeroMQ TCP socket) because TCP is forcing the socket to repeatedly retransmit messages that never sent an acknowledge.
Is this an issue that can happen using ZeroMQ? Currently I am using PUSH/PULL on a Linux OS.
Or is this not a concern, and if not, why?
It is crucial that messages from the external devices/applications do not feed stale data.
First, the only transport where retransmits are possible is TCP over an actual physical network. And then likely not on a LAN, as it's unlikely that Ethernet packets will go missing on a LAN.
TCP internal to a computer, and especially IPC, INPROC, etc will all have guaranteed delivery of data first time, every time. There is no retransmit mechanism.
If one of the transports being used by socket does experience delays due to transmission errors, that will slow things up. ZMQ cannot consider a message "sent" until it's been propagated via all the transports used by the socket. The external visibility of "sent" is that the outbound message queue has moved away from the high water mark by 1.
It's possible that any one single message will arrive sooner over IPC than TCP, and possible that message 2 will arrive over IPC before message 1 has arrived via TCP. But if you're relying on message timing / relative order, you shouldn't be using ZMQ in the first place; it's Actor model, not CSP.
EDIT For Frank
The difference between Actor and CSP is that the former is asynchronous, the latter is synchronous. Thus for Actor model, the sender has zero information as to when the receiver actually gets a message. For CSP, the sending / receiving is an execution rendevous - the send completes only when the receive is complete.
This can be remarkably useful. If in your system it makes no sense for A to instruct C to do something before (in time, not just in A's code flow) instructing B, then you can do that with CSP (but not Actor model). That's because when A sends to B, B receives the message before A's send completes, freeing A to then send to C.
Unsurprisingly it's real time systems that benefit from CSP.
So consider ZMQ's Actor model with a mix of TCP, IPC and INPROC transports in ZMQ. There's a good chance that messages send via TCP will arrive a good deal later than messages sent through INPROC, even if they were sent first.
Related
I have an application consisting of client and server by making use of sockets.
On the server side in the thread where it is receiving messages from client i have made a sleep call for 10 sec.Now when i send messages from client 1000000 times to server then messages being received from server is very slowly.My question is as follows:
-Does it mean that the receiving call on server side is blocking call?
-Secondly,is there any good document which can make me understand better the blocking and non blocking behavior of send and receive call of sockets.
Depends on whether you're using TCP or UDP sockets. TCP guarantees delivery, UDP doesn't. So in a UDP application packets can be dropped for any number of reasons, including if the servers sends too quickly to the client.
By default, calls on sockets are blocking calls. You have to set non-blocking explicitly.
I'm writing a game server for a turn-based game. One criteria is that the game needs to be as fair for all players as possible.
So far it works like this:
Each client has a TCP connection. (If relevant, the connection is opened via WebSockets)
While running, continually check for incoming socket messages via epoll.
Iterate through clients with sockets ready to read:
Read all messages from the client.
Update the internal game state for each message.
Queue outgoing messages to affected clients.
At the end of each "window" (turn):
Iterate through clients and write all queued outgoing messages to their sockets
My concern for fairness raises the following questions:
Does it matter in which order I send messages to the clients?
Calling write() on all the sockets takes only a fraction of a second for my program, but somewhere in the underlying OS or networking would it make a difference if I sorted the client list?
Perhaps I should be sending to the highest-latency clients first?
Does it matter how I write the outgoing messages to the sockets?
Currently I'm writing them as one large chunk. The size can exceed a single packet.
Would it be faster for the client to begin its processing if I sent messages in smaller chunks than 1 packet?
Would it be better to write 1 packet worth to each client at a time, and iterate over the clients multiple times?
Are there any linux/networking configurations that would bear impact here?
Thanks in advance for your feedback and tips.
Does it matter in which order I send messages to the clients?
Yes, by fractions of milliseconds. If the network interface is available for sending the OS will immediately start sending. Why would it wait?
Perhaps I should be sending to the highest-latency clients first?
I think you should be sending in random order. Shuffle the list prior to sending. This makes it fair. I think your question is valid and this should be addressed.
Currently I'm writing them as one large chunk. [...]
First, realize that TCP is stream-based and that there are no packets/messages at the protocol level. On a physical level data is indeed packetized.
It is not necessary to manually split off packets because clients will read data as it arrives anyway. If a client issues a read, that read will complete immediately once the first packet has arrived. There is no artificial waiting in the OS.
Are there any linux/networking configurations that would bear impact here?
I don't know. Be sure to disable nagling.
I have several apps which communicate through serial comm (RS-232 and RS-422), and i would like them to communicate through TCP or UDP without changing them. Another point is that some of the apps must run on linux.
I would like to know if there are exsiting tools for that purpose..
Thanks a lot!
Tal
If all you do with your serial port is read and write bytes, and if precise timing is not a concern, then you may be able to replace your serial port object with a TCP socket and send the exact same data over the socket as you would have sent over the port. The biggest complications are that the timing on a TCP socket is much looser than on a serial port, and TCP sockets' mechanisms for sending "out-of-band" data are different from those of a serial port.
I am unaware of any standards for sending serial data via UDP. Conceptually, it would seem like a useful thing to have since there are many serial-port protocols-based in which it would be more useful to drop data that can't be delivered within a certain time frame than to deliver it late. For example, if the intended recipient of serial-port data is an embedded controller that will sometimes so busy that it drops some incoming data, but which will respond within a few milliseconds to everything it does receive, a one-second hiccup on a TCP connection [not unusual] may cause software which expects to be talking directly to the controller to retransmit a command a dozen times. Even if the device would be capable of detecting and rejecting retransmissions it receives, it would be better for the earlier transmission requests to be abandoned than to have them be delivered late. Note that to be useful, a UDP-based scheme would have to include enough wrapper logic to guarantee that packets would never be delivered out of order; once the data for a packet has been sent to the serial port, any UDP packets which are received later despite having been sent earlier must be discarded; the recipient should probably include logic so that if many out-of-sequence packets are received, it will wait a little while after receiving any packet whose sequence number does not immediately follow the last one, to see if missing packets show up before it commits itself to discarding them.
There is no standard tool to do that. I am thinking to develop one. UDP is ideal in this case since it is 100% guaranteed that there is no out of order packet delivery on a short LAN as is in your case.
In several projects I have used free tool Hercules (https://www.hw-group.com/software/hercules-setup-utility) for protoyping and testing phases. No advertising intended, just a recommendation.
Upon receiving a TCP RST packet, will the host drop all the remaining data in the receive buffer that has already been ACKed by the remote host but not read by the application process using the socket?
I'm wondering if it's dangerous to close a socket as soon as I'm not interested in what the other host has to say anymore (e.g. to conserver resources); e.g. if that could cause the other party to lose any data I've already sent, but he has not yet read.
Should RSTs generally be avoided and indicate a complete, bidirectional failure of communication, or are they a relatively safe way to unidirectionally force a connection teardown as in the example above?
I've found some nice explanations of the topic, they indicate that data loss is quite possible in that case:
http://blog.olivierlanglois.net/index.php/2010/02/06/tcp_rst_flag_subtleties
http://blog.netherlabs.nl/articles/2009/01/18/the-ultimate-so_linger-page-or-why-is-my-tcp-not-reliable also gives some more information on the topic, and offers a solution that I've used in my code. So far, I've not seen any RSTs sent by my server application.
Application-level close(2) on a socket does not produce an RST but a FIN packet sent to the other side, which results in normal four-way connection tear-down. RSTs are generated by the network stack in response to packets targeting not-existing TCP connection.
On the other hand, if you close the socket but the other side still has some data to write, its next send(2) will result in EPIPE.
With all of the above in mind, you are much better off designing your own protocol on top of TCP that includes explicit "logout" or "disconnect" message.
While sending packets across a network, how can one determine where one packet ends and where another starts?
Is sending/receiving acknowledgment one of the ways of doing so?
TCP is a stream-based protocol. That is, it provides a stream vs. packet or message-based interface to the application. If using TCP, an application must implement its own method of determining packets or messages. For example, (a) all message are a fixed size, or (b) each message is prefixed with its subsequent size, or (c) there is a special "end-of-record" sequence in the data stream to indicate a message boundary. Search google for lots of information on how one can implement message boundaries in TCP.
I assume here that you mean application-level 'packets'.
If you use UDP, you don't need to since it's a message protocol. TCP is a byte streaming protocol, so it cannot send packets, just bytes. If you need to send anything more complex than a byte-stream across TCP, you have to add another protocol on top - HTTP is one such protocol. Text is fairly easy since lines have terminating characters, usually CR/LF/CRLF. Sending non-text messages will require a different protocol.
One approach that is often used with TCP is to connect, stream a protocol-unit, disconnect. This works OK, but slowly because of the huge latency of continually opening and closing TCP connections. HTTP usually works like this in order to serve up web pages to large numbers of users who, if left permanently connected while they viewed pages, would needlessly use up all the server sockets.
Waiting for an application-level ACK from the peer is sometimes necessary if it absolutely essential that peer receipt is known before the next message is sent, but again, this is slow because of the connection latency. TCP was not designed with this approach in mind.
If the commonly available IP protocols cannot directly provide what you need, you will have to resort to implementing your own.
What sort of 'packet' are you sending?
Rgds,
Martin
With TCP sockets, you just see the datastream where you can receive and send bytes. You have no way of knowing where a packet ends and another begins.
This is a feature (and a problem) of TCP. Most people just read data into a buffer until a linefeed (\n) is seen. Then process the data and wait for the next line. If transferring chunks of binary data, one can first inform the receiver of how many bytes of data are coming.
If packet boundaries are important, you could use UDP but then the packet order might change or some packets might be lost on the way without you knowing.
The newer SCTP protocol behaves much like TCP (lost packets are resend, packet ordering is retained) but with SCTP sockets you can send packets so that receiver gets exactly the same packet.