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.
Related
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.
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.
I'm using zmq to develop a distributed application having the following network topology: a client node that initiates a request and a server node that replies to requests. Since the client is a node.js application I can't block after a send call to wait the response, so the scenario is that the client could emit multiple send calls to the same endpoint. On the other side the server is a mobile application that processes one request a time in one thread, blocking if there are not any requests.
If this configuration sounds odd, I'm trying to build a sort of RPC initiated by the server to mobile.
I thought to use a DEALER socket client side and a REP socket server side. From zmq guide about DEALER/REP combination:
This gives us an asynchronous client that can talk to multiple REP servers. If we rewrote the "Hello World" client using DEALER, we'd be able to send off any number of "Hello" requests without waiting for replies.
Can it be applied to asynchronous client that can talk to one single server? And could it be a good choice? If not which pattern should I use?
Can it be applied to asynchronous client that can talk to one single server? And could it be a good choice?
REQ/REP is not recommended for traffic going over the Internet. The socket can potentially get stuck in a bad state.
The DEALER/REP is for a dealer client talking to multiple REP server. So this does not apply for your use case.
If not which pattern should I use?
In your case it seems to me that using the traditional DEALER/ROUTER is the way to go. What I usually do is prepend my messages by a "tag frame", ie a frame that contain an UUID of some sort that allows me to identifies my request (and their reply) at the application level.
The server consists of several services with which a user interacts: profiles, game logics, physics.
I heard that it's a bad practice to have multiple client connections to the same server.
I'm not sure whether I will use UDP or TCP.
The services are realtime, they should reply as fast as possible so I don't want to include any additional rerouting if there are no really important reasons. So are there any reasons to rerote traffic through one external endpoint service to specific internal services in my case?
This seems to be multiple questions in one package. I will try to answer the ones I can identify as separate...
UDP vs TCP: You're saying "real-time", this usually means UDP is the right choice. However, that means having to deal with lost packets and possible re-ordering of packets. But, using UDP leaves a couple of possible delay-decreasing tricks open.
Multiple connections from a single client to a single server: This consumes resources (end-points, as it were) on both the client (probably ignorable) and on the server (possibly a problem, possibly ignorable). The advantage of using separate connections for separate concerns (profiles, physics, ...) is that when you need to separate these onto separate servers (or server farms), you don't need to update the clients, they just need to connect to other end-points, using code that's already tested.
"Re-router" (or "load balancer") needed: Probably not going to be an issue initially. However, it will probably become an issue later. Depending on your overall design and server OS, using UDP may actually become an asset here. UDP packet arrives at the load balancer, dispatched to the right backend and that could then in theory send back a reply with the source IP of the load balancer.
An alternative would be to have a "session broker". The client makes an initial connection to a well-known endpoint, says "I am a client, tell me where my profile, physics, what-have0-you servers are", the broker considers the current load, possibly the location of the client and other things that may make sense and the client then connects to the relevant backends on its own. The downside of this is that it's harder (not impossible, but harder) to silently migrate an ongoing session to a new backend, when there's a load-balancer in the way, this can be done essentially-transparently.
Recently I've added some load-balancing capabilities to a piece of software that I wrote. It is a networked application that does some data crunching based on input coming from a SQL database. Since the crunching can be pretty intensive I've added the capability to have multiple instances of this application running on different servers to split the load but as it is now the load balancing is a manual act. A user must specify which instances take which portion of the input domain.
I would like to take that to the next level and program the instances to automatically negotiate the diving up of the input data and to recognize if one of them "disappears" (has crashed or has been powered down) so that the remaining instances can take on the failed instance's workload.
In order to implement this I'm considering using a simple heartbeat protocol between the instances to determine who's online and who isn't and while this is not terribly complicated I'd like to know if there are any established heartbeat network protocols (based on UDP, TCP or both).
Obviously this happens a lot in the networking world with clustering, fail-over and high-availability technologies so I guess in the end I'd like to know if maybe there are any established protocols or algorithms that I should be aware of or implement.
EDIT
It seems, based on the answers, that either there are no well established heart-beat protocols or that nobody knows about them (which would imply that they aren't so well established after all) in which case I'm just going to roll my own.
While none of the answers offered what I was looking for specifically I'm going to vote for Matt Davis's answer since it was the closest and he pointed out a good idea to use multicast.
Thank you all for your time~
Distribued Interactive Simulation (DIS), which is defined under IEEE Standard 1278, uses a default heartbeat of 5 seconds via UDP broadcast. A DIS heartbeat is essentially an Entity State PDU, which fully defines the state, including the position, of the given entity. Due to its application within the simulation community, DIS also uses a concept referred to as dead-reckoning to provide higher frequency heartbeats when the actual position, for example, is outside a given threshold of its predicted position.
In your case, a DIS Entity State PDU would be overkill. I only mention it to make note of the fact that heartbeats can vary in frequency depending on the circumstances. I don't know that you'd need something like this for the application you described, but you never know.
For heartbeats, use UDP, not TCP. A heartbeat is, by nature, a connectionless contrivance, so it goes that UDP (connectionless) is more relevant here than TCP (connection-oriented).
The thing to keep in mind about UDP broadcasts is that a broadcast message is confined to the broadcast domain. In short, if you have computers that are separated by a layer 3 device, e.g., a router, then broadcasts are not going to work because the router will not transmit broadcast messages from one broadcast domain to another. In this case, I would recommend using multicast since it will span the broadcast domains, providing the time-to-live (TTL) value is set high enough. It's also a more automated approach than directed unicast, which would require the sender to know the IP address of the receiver in order to send the message.
Broadcast a heartbeat every t using UDP; if you haven't heard from a machine in more than k*t, then it's assumed down. Be careful that the aggregate bandwidth used isn't a drain on resources. You can use IP broadcast addresses, or keep a list of specific IPs you're doing work for.
Make sure the heartbeat includes a "reboot count" as well as "machine ID" so that you know previous server state isn't around.
I'd recommend using MapReduce if it fits. It would save a lot of work.
I'm not sure this will answer the question but you might be interested by the way Weblogic Server clustering work under the hood. From the book Mastering BEA WebLogic Server:
[...] WebLogic Server clustering provides a loose coupling of the servers in the cluster. Each server in the cluster is independent and does not rely on any other server for any fundamental operations. Even if contact with every other server is lost, each server will continue to run and be able to process the requests it receives. Each server in the cluster maintains its own list of other servers in the cluster through periodic heartbeat messages. Every 10 seconds, each server sends a heartbeat message to the other servers in the cluster to let them know it is still alive. Heartbeat messages are sent using IP multicast technology built into the JVM, making this mechanism efficient and scalable as the number of servers in the cluster gets large. Each server receives these heartbeat messages from other servers and uses them to maintain its current cluster membership list. If a server misses receiving three heartbeat messages in a row from any other server, it takes that server out of its membership list until it receives another heartbeat message from that server. This heartbeat technology allows servers to be dynamically added and dropped from the cluster with no impact on the existing servers’ configurations.
Cisco content switches are a hardware solution for this problem. They implement a virtual IP address as a front end to multiple real servers, whose real IP addresses are known to the switch. The switch periodically sends HTTP HEAD requests to the web servers, to verify they are still running (which the switch software calls a "keepalive", although this doesn't keep the server itself alive). The Cisco switch accepts traffic on the virtual IP and forwards it to the actual web servers, using configurable load balancing such as round-robin, or user-defined load balancing.
These switches retail in the $3-10K range, although my business partner picked one up on eBay for about $300 a year ago. If you can afford one, they do represent a proven hardware solution to the question of how to have a service spread transparently across multiple servers. Redhat includes a built-in port configuration so that you could implement your own Cisco switch using a cheap RedHat box. Google for "virtual ip address" and "cisco content router" for more information.
In addition to trying hardware load-balancers, you can also try a free-open-source load-balancing software application such as HAProxy, available for Linux and the BSDs.