Keeping it simple, I have a server and client. The server sends questions one by one and the client the answers, as soon as they are given.
So, would you say this application is real time?
Based on this quote from wikipedia, which summarizes my understand of what a real-time application is:
"A system is said to be real-time if the total correctness of an operation depends not
only upon its logical correctness, but also upon the time in which it is performed. The classical conception is that in a hard real-time or immediate real-time system, the completion of an operation after its deadline is considered useless - ultimately, this may cause a critical failure of the complete system. A soft real-time system on the other hand will tolerate such lateness, and may respond with decreased service quality (e.g., omitting frames while displaying a video)."
I would say no, it is not real-time.
No, Real-time systems are ones where the OS/Application has to respond to the environment within a known period, for example an embedded flight control system on a fighter jet.
Wikipedia has a fairly good article on Real-time computing.
If you are using for the communication a protocol like TCP/IP, that isnt realtime system, because these communication link are not by nature deterministic in matter of response time, the only sure thing is that the message will arrive, when? who knows...
Related
I am preparing to write some code for a master controller that communicates (via CANbus) with multiple nodes in a product. Each node monitors its own sensors (i.e. voltages, currents, fault flags, etc.) and can be started/stopped by the master controller. The master controller also sends the data to a display.
I am using an STM32H7B3I-EVAL board and using the STM32CubeIDE environment to write the code. I am trying to determine some good practices for writing this code, but I am inexperienced in CAN communication. I wanted to get people's opinions on the following high-level questions:
If we want to be constantly monitoring, should all the code for transmitting and receiving data be in a never-ending while loop?
Is it better to transmit all data then receive all data, or transmit data when needed and have an interrupt for received messages?
What are the pros/cons in using an RXBUFFER vs RXFIFO?
First of all, you need to invent an application tier CAN protocol unless you have one already. This isn't entirely trivial and requires some experience of CAN. Here you first of all need to take bus load in account, which in turn depends on the amounts of nodes and data allowed, as well as the baudrate. How to design this also depends on if it's a control system (hard realtime, milliseconds) or just some industrial sensor network (hundreds of milliseconds or seconds).
If we want to be constantly monitoring, should all the code for transmitting and receiving data be in a never-ending while loop?
Probably not. Regarding RX, depending on what CAN controller you have, there will at least be some manner of RX FIFO. Modern controllers also support dedicated "mailbox" slots for individual messages, which is more powerful and easier to work with. Your only requirement for never losing data is that you empty the FIFO at least as often as FIFO size times the time it takes to send the minimum package size (DLC=0). Unless your program is very busy, this is usually not a tough realtime deadline to meet.
Regarding TX, again it depends on the controller, but here it is usually sufficient to see that the previously send message has been send before attempting a new one. And unless you are really competing hard for bus access during a time of heavy bus load, this shouldn't be happening. Sensible CAN application protocols have some simple scheduling requirements such as "this gets sent after x ms in relation to that". Re-sending messages lost due to errors is handled by the controller hardware.
Is it better to transmit all data then receive all data, or transmit data when needed and have an interrupt for received messages?
TX and RX buffers work independently of each other. Also what you are saying doesn't really make sense, since CAN is semi-duplex and one node's TX is another node's RX.
What are the pros/cons in using an RXBUFFER vs RXFIFO?
Those terms are pretty much synonymous. I suppose they may have some special meaning given a specific CAN controller, but you don't mention one (STM32 have several, one old and really bad "bxCAN" and one newer which I don't know much about. And some stubbornly insist on the horrible solution of using external controllers, particularly the Arduino kids).
Anyway, it is better to have neither, using a CAN controller with mailboxes is the best option. Unless the amount of expected identifiers are more than you have mailbox slots - in that case you have to direct low priority messages to a RX FIFO and use mailbox slots for high priority messages.
this is a quick question about common existing operating systems.
Is a polled io device (say of 120hz or 250hz) generally getting polled at a fixed rate or there are usually considerable fluctuations in polling intervals, and if there are fluctuations, are they in terms of milliseconds or micro/nanoseconds?
This depends upon the processor architecture, system and application design. Your basic reference is this Wikipedia article.
In an embedded system where the result and latency of polling a particular device may be the most important and central purpose of the system, you are likely to see a tight loop busy-waiting at processor instruction speeds (micro/nanoseconds) with low jitter. These intervals may not be completely deterministic due to modern processor architecture improvements such as speculative branching depending on the surrounding code; see this relevant StackOverflow answer.
In a multitasking system doing lots of things and occasionally polling for, say, keystrokes from a HID of course there will be considerably higher latency in units more like milliseconds. Tasks may switch, processes may be swapped in and out etc.
This is a quick answer to your quick question - trying to put you into the ballpark but making clear that there could be a lot at play here depending on your environment.
I have started using launch darkly(LD) recently. And I was exploring how LD updates its feature flags.
As mentioned Here, there are two ways.
Streaming
Polling
I was just thinking which implementation will be better in what cases. After a little research about streaming vs polling, It was found Streaming has the following advantages over polling.
Faster than polling
Receives only latest data instead of all the data which is same as before
Avoids periodic requests
I am pretty sure all of the above advantages comes at a cost. So,
Are there any downsides of using streaming over polling?
In what scenarios polling should be preferred? or the other way around?
On what factors should I decide whether to stream or poll?
Streaming
Streaming requires your application to be always alive. This might not be the case in a serverless environment. Furthermore, a streaming solution usually relies on a connection that is always open in the background. This might be costly, so feature flag providers tend to limit the number of concurrent connections you can keep open to their infrastructure. This might be not a problem if you use feature flags only in a few application instances. But you will easily reach the limit if you want to stream feature flag updates to mobile apps or a ton of microservices.
Polling
Polling sounds less fancy, but it's a reliable & robust old-school pattern that will work in almost all environments.
Webhooks
There is a third option too: webhooks. The basic idea is that you create an HTTP endpoint on your end and he feature flag service will call that endpoint whenever a feature flag value update happens. This way you get a "notification" about feature flag value changes. For example ConfigCat supports this model. ConfigCat can notify your infrastructure by calling your webhooks and (optionally) pushing new values to your end. Webhooks have the advantage over streaming that they are cheap to maintain, so feature flag service providers don't limit them as much (for example ConfigCat can give you unlimited webhooks).
How to decide
How I would use the above 3 option really depends on your use-case. A general rule of thumb is: use polling by default and add quasi real-time notifications (by streaming or by webhooks) to the components where it's critical to know about feature flag value updates.
In addition to #Zoltan's answer, I Found the following from LaunchDarkly's Effective Feature management E book (Page 36)
In any networked system there are two methods to distribute information.
Polling is the method by which the endpoints (clients or servers) periodically ask for updates. Streaming, the second method,is when the central authority pushes the new values to all the end‐points as they change.Both options have pros and cons.
However, in a poll-based system, you are faced with an unattractive trade-off: either you poll infrequently and run the risk of different parts of your application having different flag states, or you poll very frequently and shoulder high costs in system load, network bandwidth, and the necessary infra‐structure to support the high demands.
A streaming architecture, on the other hand, offers speed advantages and consistency guarantees. Streaming is a better fit for large-scale and distributed systems. In this design, each client maintains along-running connection to the feature management system, which instantly sends down any changes as they occur to all clients.
Polling Pros:
Simple
Easily cached
Polling Cons:
Inefficient. All clients need to connect momentarily, regardless of whether there is a change.
Changes require roughly twice the polling interval to propagate to all clients.
Because of long polling intervals, the system could create a “split brain” situation, in which both new flag and old flag states exist at the same time.
Streaming Pros:
Efficient at scale. Each client receives messages only when necessary.
Fast Propagation. Changes can be pushed out to clients in real time.
Streaming Cons:
Requires the central service to maintain connections for every client
Assumes a reliable network
For my use case, I have decided to use polling in places where I don't need to update the flags often(long polling interval) and doesn't care about inconsistencies (split-brain) .
And Streaming for applications that need immediate flag updates and consistency is important.
Do we have a guaranteed delivery of the message sent via Implicit messaging in Ethernet/IP?
Implicit messaging uses UDP, so my guess is no, but this seems strange given that Implicit messaging is used for real-time control, so I wonder maybe Ethernet/IP provides guaranteed delivery on top of UDP?
If no, should I implement something on top of it? We do not care much about real-time thing, but we need a guaranteed delivery and we are forced to use implicit messaging
This article gives a good overview of it. UDP is faster than using a connection oriented transport and can be multicast which makes it a pretty good fit. Reliablility however is it's drawback.
If data is updating frequently this isn't such a problem. In other applications I've used PGM on top of this for the reliability. But this was for PC to PC comms.
I'm assuming that CIP Safety must use something similar.
No, there is no guarenteed delivery. If a device along the route decides to drop all the UDP packets, they will not be delivered. The connection will then close due to a receive timeout. This timeout is specified by means of a CIP timeout multiplier which defines the maximum allowed number of frame losses in a sequence. The minimum ist four.
Regarding the term "Real Time", you have to distinguish between hard realtime systems and soft realtime systems. EtherNet/IP is definetly soft-realtime, meaning that those systems are typically correct, i.e. delivering in due time. There is no guarantee that the data will be available within a certain time at the peer as in a hard-realtime network.
Safety requirements in this domain are often covered by redundancy, plausibility checks and fail safe states.
is streaming a viable option?
will there be a performance difference on the server end depending on which i choose?
is one better than the other for this case?
I am working on a GWT application with Tomcat running on the server end. To understand my needs, imagine updating the stock prices of several stocks concurrently.
Do you want the process to be client- or server-driven? In other words, do you want to push new data to the clients as soon as it's available, or would you rather that the clients request new data whenever they see fit, even though that might not be once/second? What is the likelyhood that the client will be able to stick around to wait for an answer? Even though you expect the events to occur once/second, how long does it take between a request from a client and the return from the server? If it's longer than a second, I'd expect you to lean towards pushing the events to the clients, though the other way around, I'd expect polling to be okay. If the response takes longer than the interval, then you're essentially streaming anyway, since there's a new event ready by the time the client receives the last one, so the client could essentially poll continually and always receive events - in this case, streaming the data would actually be more lightweight, since you're removing the connection/negotiation overhead from the process.
I would suspect that server load to be higher for a client-based (pull) subscription, instead of a streaming configuration, since the client would have to re-negotiate the connection each time, instead of leaving a connection open, but each open connection in a streaming model would require server resources as well. It depends on what the trade-off is between how aggressive your negotiation process is vs. how much memory/processing is required for each open connection. I'm no expert, though, so there may be other factors.
UPDATE: This guy talks about the trade-offs between long-polling and streaming, and he seems to say that with HTTP/1.1, the connection re-negotiation process is trivial, so that's not as much of an issue.
It doesn't really matter. The connection re-negotiation overhead is so slim with HTTP1.1, you won't notice any significant performance differences one way or another.
The benefits of long-polling are compatibility and reliability - no issues with proxies, ports, detecting disconnects, etc.
The benefits of "true" streaming would potentially be reduced overhead, but as mentioned already, this benefit is much, much less than it's made out to be.
Personally, I find a well-designed comet server to be the best solution for large numbers of updates and/or server-push.
Certainly, if you're looking to push data, streaming would seem to provide better performance, if your server can handle the expected number of continuous connections. But there's another issue that you don't address: Are you internet or intranet? Streaming has been reported to have some problems across proxies, much as you'd expect. So for a general purpose solution, you would probably be better served by long poll - for an intranet, where you understand the network infrastructure, streaming is quite likely a simpler, better performance solution for you.
The StreamHub GWT Comet Adapter was designed exactly for this scenario of streaming stock quotes. Example here: GWT Streaming Stock Quotes. It updates the stock prices of several stocks concurrently. I think the implementation underneath is Comet which is essentially streaming over HTTP.
Edit: It uses a different technique for each browser. To quote the website:
There are several different underlying
techniques used to implement Comet
including Hidden iFrame,
XMLHttpRequest/Script Long Polling,
and embedded plugins such as Flash.
The introduction of HTML 5 WebSockets
in to future browsers will provide an
alternative mechanism for HTTP
Streaming. StreamHub uses a "best-fit"
approach utilizing the most performant
and reliable technique for each
browser.
Streaming will be faster because data only crosses the wire one way. With polling, the latency is at least twice.
Polling is more resilient to network outages since it doesn't rely on a connection being kept open.
I'd go for polling just for the robustness.
For live stock prices I would absolutely keep the connection open, and ensure user alert/reconnection on disconnect.