I want to create a chat program between a server and a client, I want the client or server to be able to send message to the other end at anytime without waiting for example:
Client: hi
Server: hi
Server: I'm the server.
Server: How are you?
Client: Good.
In this example the Server doesn't wait for the Client to reply and sends another message at anytime.
Should I use the function select?, If so how should I determine the timeout and is the timeout value is the solution for busy waiting?
Is select function is the best approach for this problem?
Thanks.
Using select seems like the right approach, especially if you want the program to work on Windows. This will allow you to block the process and wait for a message from multiple clients simultaneously.
In general you should set the timeout to NULL so that the server will block indefinitely for a request from a client. The timeout is only useful if you want to additionally wake up the server at regular intervals for other reasons.
If you are targetting Unices (like Linux) it is easier and more efficient to use poll. This does basically the same thing but the interface is easier to work with. select becomes quite awkward to use if the file descriptor numbers become larger than 1024, which is a problem if you ever expect your server to handle large numbers of clients.
If you are targeting Linux specifically and don't care about portability you can even use epoll which has even more performance advantages and is arguably easier to use.
If you are only targeting Windows, you can create event objects for each of the sockets and then use WaitForMultipleObjectsEx to wait for data from any of them. This provides similar functionality to poll but the API is quite involved.
Related
I'm trying to enhance a server-app-website architecture in reliability, another programmer has developed.
At the moment, android smartphones start a tcp connection to a server component to exchange data. The server takes the data, writes them into a DB and another user can have a look on the data through a website. The problem is that the smartphones very regularly are in locations where connectivity is really bad. The consequence is that the smartphones lose the tcp connection and it's hard to reconnect. Now my question is, if there are any protocols that are so lightweight or accomodating concerning bad connectivity that the data exchange could work better or more reliable.
For example, I was thinking about replacing the raw TCP interface with a RESTful API, but I don't really know how well REST works in this scenario, as I don't have any experience in this area.
Maybe useful to know for answering this question: The server component is programmed in c#. The connecting components are android smartphones.
Please understand that I dont add some code to this question, because in my opinion its just a theoretically question.
Thank you in advance !
REST runs over HTTP which runs over TCP so it would have the same issues with connectivity.
Moving up the stack to the application you could perhaps think in terms of 'interference'. I quite often have to use technical stuff in remote areas with limited reception and it reminds of trying to communicate in a storm. If you think about it, if you're trying to get someone to do something in a storm where they can hardly hear you and the words get blown away (dropped signal), you don't read them the manual on how to fix something, you shout key words such as 'handle', 'pull', 'pull', 'PULL', 'ok'. So the information reaches them in small bursts you can repeat (pull, what? pull, eh? PULL! oh righto!)
Can you redesign the communications between the android app and the server so the server can recognise key 'words' with corresponding data and build up the request over a period of time? If you consider idempotency, each burst of data would not alter the request if it has already been received (pull, PULL!) and over time the android app could send/receive smaller chunks of the request. If the signal stays up, just keep sending. If it goes down, note which parts of the request haven't been sent and retry them when the signal comes back.
So you're sending the request jigsaw-style but the server knows how to reassemble the pieces in the right order. A STOP word at the end tells the server ok this request is complete, go work on it. Until that word arrives the server can store the incomplete request or discard it if no more data comes in.
If the server respond to the first request chunk with an id, the app can use the id to get the response and keep trying until the full response comes back, at which point the server can remove the response from its jigsaw cache. A fair amount of work though.
I am building an OSX app that needs to get data from server. The easy way, is to make a GET request at some fixed time interval, and process results. Thats not what I want. I want the other way around: e.g. server to send data to my app, when something happens on the server side. That way I do not need to make constant requests from client side. I don't need the data to visually be displayed, just processed.
Can this be implemented in OSX with Swift?
You have two ways to achieve this:
Websocket:
Websocket is a full-duplex communication channel over a TCP-Connection. It's established via HTTP.
Long Polling:
Same as you said before but without responding directly. Your client makes a HTTP request and set a very long timeout timer. The server responds after something is happening. (More)
I would recommend you Websocket since it was built exactly for this use case. But if you have to implement it quickly you should probably go with long polling for now, since the barrier to implement it is much lower and switch to Websocket later.
I need to build a TCP server using C# .NET 4.5+, it must be capable of comfortably handling at least 3,000 connected clients that will be send messages every 10 seconds and with a message size from 250 to 500 bytes.
The data will be offloaded to another process or queue for batch processing and logging.
I also need to be able to select an existing client to send and receive messages (greater then 500 bytes) messages within a windows forms application.
I have not built an application like this before so my knowledge is based on the various questions, examples and documentation that I have found online.
My conclusion is:
non-blocking async is the way to go. Stay away from creating multiple threads and blocking IO.
SocketAsyncEventArgs - Is complex and really only needed for very large systems, BTW what constitutes a very large system? :-)
BeginXXX methods will suffice (EAP).
Using TAP I can simplify 3. by using Task.Factory.FromAsync, but it only produces the same outcome.
Use a global collection to keep track of the connected tcp clients
What I am unsure about:
Should I use a ManualResetEvent when interacting with the TCP Client collection? I presume the asyc events will need to lock access to this collection.
Best way to detect a disconnected client after I have called BeginReceive. I've found the call is stuck waiting for a response so this needs to be cleaned up.
Sending messages to a specific TCP Client. I'm thinking function in custom TCP session class to send a message. Again in an async model, would I need to create a timer based process that inspects a message queue or would I create an event on a TCP Session class that has access to the TcpClient and associated stream? Really interested in opinions here.
I'd like to use a thread for the entire service and use non-blocking principals within, are there anythings I should be mindful of espcially in context of 1. ManualResetEvent etc..
Thank you for reading. I am keen to hear constructive thoughts and or links to best practices/examples. It's been a while since I've coded in c# so apologies if some of my questions are obvious. Tasks, async/await are new to me! :-)
I need to build a TCP server using C# .NET 4.5+
Well, the first thing to determine is whether it has to be base-bones TCP/IP. If you possibly can, write one that uses a higher-level abstraction, like SignalR or WebAPI. If you can write one using WebSockets (SignalR), then do that and never look back.
Your conclusions sound pretty good. Just a few notes:
SocketAsyncEventArgs - Is complex and really only needed for very large systems, BTW what constitutes a very large system? :-)
It's not so much a "large" system in the terms of number of connections. It's more a question of how much traffic is in the system - the number of reads/writes per second.
The only thing that SocketAsyncEventArgs does is make your I/O structures reusable. The Begin*/End* (APM) APIs will create a new IAsyncResult for each I/O operation, and this can cause pressure on the garbage collector. SocketAsyncEventArgs is essentially the same as IAsyncResult, only it's reusable. Note that there are some examples on the 'net that use the SocketAsyncEventArgs APIs without reusing the SocketAsyncEventArgs structures, which is completely ridiculous.
And there's no guidelines here: heavier hardware will be able to use the APM APIs for much more traffic. As a general rule, you should build a barebones APM server and load test it first, and only move to SAEA if it doesn't work on your target server's hardware.
On to the questions:
Should I use a ManualResetEvent when interacting with the TCP Client collection? I presume the asyc events will need to lock access to this collection.
If you're using TAP-based wrappers, then await will resume on a captured context by default. I explain this in my blog post on async/await.
There are a couple of approaches you can take here. I have successfully written a reliable and performant single-threaded TCP/IP server; the equivalent for modern code would be to use something like my AsyncContextThread class. It provides a context that will cause await to resume on that same thread by default.
The nice thing about single-threaded servers is that there's only one thread, so no synchronization or coordination is necessary. However, I'm not sure how well a single-threaded server would scale. You may want to give that a try and see how much load it can take.
If you do find you need multiple threads, then you can just use async methods on the thread pool; await will not have a captured context and so will resume on a thread pool thread. In this case, yes, you'd need to coordinate access to any shared data structures including your TCP client collection.
Note that SignalR will handle all of this for you. :)
Best way to detect a disconnected client after I have called BeginReceive. I've found the call is stuck waiting for a response so this needs to be cleaned up.
This is the half-open problem, which I discuss in detail on my blog. The best way (IMO) to solve this is to periodically send a "noop" keepalive message to each client.
If modifying the protocol isn't possible, then the next-best solution is to just close the connection after a no-communication timeout. This is how HTTP "persistent"/"keep-alive" connections decide to close. There's another possibile solution (changing the keepalive packet settings on the socket), but it's not as easy (requires p/Invoke) and has other problems (not always respected by routers, not supported by all OS TCP/IP stacks, etc).
Oh, and SignalR will handle this for you. :)
Sending messages to a specific TCP Client. I'm thinking function in custom TCP session class to send a message. Again in an async model, would I need to create a timer based process that inspects a message queue or would I create an event on a TCP Session class that has access to the TcpClient and associated stream? Really interested in opinions here.
If your server can send messages to any client (i.e., it's not just a request/response protocol; any part of the server can send messages to any client without the client requesting an update), then yes, you'll need a proper queue of outgoing requests because you can't (reliably) issue multiple concurrent writes on a socket. I wouldn't have the consumer be timer-based, though; there are async-compatible producer/consumer queues available (like BufferBlock<T> from TPL Dataflow, and it's not that hard to write one if you have async-compatible locks and condition variables).
Oh, and SignalR will handle this for you. :)
I'd like to use a thread for the entire service and use non-blocking principals within, are there anythings I should be mindful of espcially in context of 1. ManualResetEvent etc..
If your entire service is single-threaded, then you shouldn't need any coordination primitives at all. However, if you do use the thread pool instead of syncing back to the main thread (for scalability reasons), then you will need to coordinate. I have a coordination primitives library that you may find useful because its types have both synchronous and asynchronous APIs. This allows, e.g., one method to block on a lock while another method wants to asynchronously block on a lock.
You may have noticed a recurring theme around SignalR. Use it if you possibly can! If you have to write a bare-bones TCP/IP server and can't use SignalR, then take your initial time estimate and triple it. Seriously. Then you can get started down the path of painful TCP with my TCP/IP FAQ blog series.
Let's say, I have a server with many connected clients via TCP, i have a socket for every client and i have a sending and receiving thread for every client. Is it safe and possible to call send function at the same time as it will not call send function for same socket.
If it's safe and ok, Can i stream data to clients simultaneously without blocking send function for other clients ?
Thank you very much for answers.
Yes it is possible and thread-safe. You could have tested it, or worked out for yourself that IS, IIS, SQL Server etc. wouldn't work very well if it wasn't.
Assuming this is Windows from the tag of "Winsock".
This design (having a send/receive thread for every single connected client), overall, is not going to scale. Hopefully you are aware of that and you know that you have an extremely limited number of clients (even then, I wouldn't write it this way).
You don't need to have a thread pair for every single client.
You can serve tons of clients with a single thread using non-blocking IO and read/write ready notifications (either with select() or one of the varieties of Overlapped IO such as completion routines or completion ports). If you use completion ports you can set a pool of threads to handle socket IO and queue the work for your own worker thread or threads/threadpool.
Yes, you can send and receive to many sockets at once from different threads; but you shouldn't need those extra threads because you shouldn't be making blocking calls to send/recv at all. When you make a non-blocking call the amount that could be written immediately is written and the function returns, you then note how much was sent and ask for notification when the socket is next writable.
I think you might want to consider a different approach as this isn't simple stuff; if you're using .Net you might get by with building this with TcpListener or HttpListener (both of which use completion ports for you), though be aware that you can't easily disable Nagle's algorithm with those so if you need interactivity (think of the auto-complete on Google's search page) then you probably won't get the performance you want.
Nginx uses epoll, or other multiplexing techniques(select) for its handling multiple clients, i.e it does not spawn a new thread for every request unlike apache.
I tried to replicate the same in my own test program using select. I could accept connections from multiple client by creating a non-blocking socket and using select to decide which client to serve. My program would simply echo their data back to them .It works fine for small data transfers (some bytes per client)
The problem occurs when I need to send a large file over a connection to the client. Since i have only one thread to serve all client till the time I am finished reading the file and writing it over to the socket i cannot resume serving other client.
Is there a known solution to this problem, or is it best to create a thread for every such request ?
When using select you should not send the whole file at once. If you e.g. are using sendfile to do this it will block until the whole file has been sent. Instead use a small buffer, and send a little data at a time to each client. Then use select to identify when the socket is again ready to be written to and send some more until all data has been sent. This will allow you to handle multiple clients in parallel.
The simplest approach is to create a thread per request, but it's certainly not the most scalable approach. I think at this time basically all high-performance web servers use various asynchronous approaches built on things like epoll (Linux), kqueue (BSD), or IOCP (Windows).
Since you don't provide any information about your performance requirements, and since all the non-threaded approaches require restructuring your application to use these often-complex asynchronous techniques (as described in the C10K article and others found from there), for now your best bet is just to use the threaded approach.
Please update your question with concrete requirements for performance and other relevant data if you need more.
For background this may be useful reading http://www.kegel.com/c10k.html
I think you are using your callback to handle a single connection. This is not how it was designed. Your callback has to handle the whatever-thousand of connections you are planning to serve, i.e from the number of file descriptor you get as parameter, you have to know (by reading the global variables) what to do with that client, either read() or send() or ... whatever