It's not clear how to use jain SIP stack in mutli-thread environment. I need to create multiple SIP sessions from different threads, e.g each client should be proceeded in its own transaction. Below is few options:
Use single SipProvider for receiving and sending SIP requests and do multiplexing on application side. SipProvider is not thread-safe, hence sending requests requires proper locking.
Create new SipProvider and new ListeningPoint for each client. This is how it works for me now. However, I don't really like it. And it's not clear, whther SipStack threadsafe or not
Create new instance of SipStack for every client
Its been a long time since I thought about JAIN-SIP (or even SIP for that matter or even Java) but here goes:
Set the re-entrant listener flag when you create the stack. (look up the javadocs). Specify a thread pool size. When a sip request or response comes along, the stack may potentially create a new thread for you and invoke your listener.
Your critical section is the SipListener implementation. You should not block for ever in it - otherwise new inbound requests and responses will not be routed to the sip listener for the transaction that is being processed at the time you blocked.
Hope that answers your question. Happy hacking.
Thats it.
why don't you ue SIP Servlets, it lets you focus on your application logic and handles those details for you ?
See http://code.google.com/p/sipservlets/
Related
I have an existing akka application built on socko websockets. Communication with the sockets takes place inside a single actor and messages both leaving and entering the actor (incoming and outgoing messages, respectively) are labelled with the socket id, which is a first class property of a socko websocket (in socko a connection request arrives labelled with the id, and all the lifecycle transitions such as handshaking, disconnection, incoming frames etc. are similarly labelled)
I'd like to reimplement this single actor using akka-http (socko is more-or-less abandonware these days, for obvious reasons) but it's not straightforward because the two libraries are conceptually very different; akka-http hides the lower level details of the handshaking, disconnection etc, simply sending whichever actor was bound to the http server an UpgradeToWebsocket request header. The header object contains a method that takes a materialized Flow as a handler for all messages exchanged with the client.
So far, so good; I am able to receive messages on the web socket and reply them directly. The official examples all assume some kind of stateless request-reply model, so I'm struggling with understanding how to make the next step to assigning a label to the materialized flow, managing its lifecycle and connection state (I need to inform other actors in the application when a connection is dropped by a client, as well as label the messages.)
The alternative (remodelling the whole application using akka-streams) is far too big a job, so any advice about how to keep track of the sockets would be much appreciated.
To interface with an existing actor-based system, you should look at Source.actorRef and Sink.actorRef. Source.actorRef creates an ActorRef that you can send messages to, and Sink.actorRef allows you to process the incoming messages using an actor and also to detect closing of the websocket.
To connect the actor created by Source.actorRef to the existing long-lived actor, use Flow#mapMaterializedValue. This would also be a good place to assign an unique id for a socket connection.
This answer to a related question might get you started.
One thing to be aware of. The current websocket implementation does not close the server to client flow when the client to server flow is closed using a websocket close message. There is an issue open to implement this, but until it is implemented you have to do this yourself. For example by having something like this in your protocol stack.
The answer from Rüdiger Klaehn was a useful starting point, thanks!
In the end I went with ActorPublisher after reading another question here (Pushing messages via web sockets with akka http).
The key thing is that the Flow is 'materialized' somewhere under the hood of akka-http, so you need to pass into UpgradeToWebSocket.handleMessagesWithSinkSource a Source/Sink pair that already know about an existing actor. So I create an actor (which implements ActorPublisher[TextMessage.Strict]) and then wrap it in Source.fromPublisher(ActorPublisher(myActor)).
When you want to inject a message into the stream from the actor's receive method you first check if totalDemand > 0 (i.e. the stream is willing to accept input) and if so, call onNext with the contents of the message.
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.
We have an application written against Mobicents SIP Servlets, currently this is using v2.1.547 but I have also tested against v3.1.633 with the same behavior noted.
Our application is working as a B2BUA, we have an incoming SIP call and we also have an outbound SIP call being placed to an MRF which is executing VXML. These two SIP calls are associated with a single SipApplicationSession - which is the concurrency model we have configured.
The scenario which recreates this 100% of the time is as follows:
inbound call placed to our application (call is not answered)
outbound call placed to MRF
inbound call hangsup
application attempts to terminate the SipSession associated with the outbound call
I am seeing this being logged:
2015-12-17 09:53:56,771 WARN [SipApplicationSessionImpl] (MSS-Executor-Thread-14) Failed to acquire session semaphore java.util.concurrent.Semaphore#55fcc0cb[Permits = 0] for 30 secs. We will unlock the semaphore no matter what because the transaction is about to timeout. THIS MIGHT ALSO BE CONCURRENCY CONTROL RISK. app Session is5faf5a3a-6a83-4f23-a30a-57d3eff3281c;SipController
I am willing to believe somehow our application might be triggering this behavior but I can't see how at the moment. I would have thought acquiring/releasing the Semaphore was all internal to the implementation so it should ensure something doesn't acquire the Semaphore and never release it?
Any pointers on how to get to the bottom of this would be appreciated, as I said it is 100% repeatable so getting logs etc is all possible.
It's hard to tell without seeing any logs or application code on how you access and schedule messages to be sent. But if you use the same SipApplicationSession in an asynchronous manner you may want to use our vendor specific asynchronous API https://mobicents.ci.cloudbees.com/job/MobicentsSipServlets-Release/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/documentation/jsr289-extensions-apidocs/org/mobicents/javax/servlet/sip/SipSessionsUtilExt.html#scheduleAsynchronousWork(java.lang.String,%20org.mobicents.javax.servlet.sip.SipApplicationSessionAsynchronousWork) which will guarantee that the access to the SipapplicationSession is serialized and avoid any concurrency issues.
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.
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.