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
Related
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.
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 understand the main principles behind both. I have however a thought which I can't answer.
Benchmarks show that WebSockets can serve more messages as this website shows: http://blog.arungupta.me/rest-vs-websocket-comparison-benchmarks/
This makes sense as it states the connections do not have to be closed and reopened, also the http headers etc.
My question is, what if the connections are always from different clients all the time (and perhaps maybe some from the same client). The benchmark suggests it's the same clients connecting from what I understand, which would make sense keeping a constant connection.
If a user only does a request every minute or so, would it not be beneficial for the communication to run over REST instead of WebSockets as the server frees up sockets and can handle a larger crowd as to speak?
To fix the issue of REST you would go by vertical scaling, and WebSockets would be horizontal?
Doe this make sense or am I out of it?
This is my experience so far, I am happy to discuss my conclusions about using WebSockets in big applications approached with CQRS:
Real Time Apps
Are you creating a financial application, game, chat or whatever kind of application that needs low latency, frequent, bidirectional communication? Go with WebSockets:
Well supported.
Standard.
You can use either publisher/subscriber model or request/response model (by creating a correlationId with each request and subscribing once to it).
Small size apps
Do you need push communication and/or pub/sub in your client and your application is not too big? Go with WebSockets. Probably there is no point in complicating things further.
Regular Apps with some degree of high load expected
If you do not need to send commands very fast, and you expect to do far more reads than writes, you should expose a REST API to perform CRUD (create, read, update, delete), specially C_UD.
Not all devices prefer WebSockets. For example, mobile devices may prefer to use REST, since maintaining a WebSocket connection may prevent the device from saving battery.
You expect an outcome, even if it is a time out. Even when you can do request/response in WebSockets using a correlationId, still the response is not guaranteed. When you send a command to the system, you need to know if the system has accepted it. Yes you can implement your own logic and achieve the same effect, but what I mean, is that an HTTP request has the semantics you need to send a command.
Does your application send commands very often? You should strive for chunky communication rather than chatty, so you should probably batch those change request.
You should then expose a WebSocket endpoint to subscribe to specific topics, and to perform low latency query-response, like filling autocomplete boxes, checking for unique items (eg: usernames) or any kind of search in your read model. Also to get notification on when a change request (write) was actually processed and completed.
What I am doing in a pet project, is to place the WebSocket endpoint in the read model, then on connection the server gives a connectionID to the client via WebSocket. When the client performs an operation via REST, includes an optional parameter that indicates "when done, notify me through this connectionID". The REST server returns saying if the command was sent correctly to a service bus. A queue consumer processes the command, and when done (well or wrong), if the command had notification request, another message is placed in a "web notification queue" indicating the outcome of the command and the connectionID to be notified. The read model is subscribed to this queue, gets messessages and forward them to the appropriate WebSocket connection.
However, if your REST API is going to be consumed by non-browser clients, you may want to offer a way to check of the completion of a command using the async REST approach: https://www.adayinthelifeof.nl/2011/06/02/asynchronous-operations-in-rest/
I know, that is quite appealing to have an low latency UP channel available to send commands, but if you do, your overall architecture gets messed up. For example, if you are using a CQRS architecture, where is your WebSocket endpoint? in the read model or in the write model?
If you place it on the read model, then you can easy access to your read DB to answer fast search queries, but then you have to couple somehow the logic to process commands, being the read model the responsible of send the commands to the write model and notify if it is unable to do so.
If you place it on the write model, then you have it easy to place commands, but then you need access to your read model and read DB if you want to answer search queries through the WebSocket.
By considering WebSockets part of your read model and leaving command processing to the REST interface, you keep your loose coupling between your read model and your write model.
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.
First, here's my original question that spawned all of this.
I'm using Appcelerator Titanium to develop an iPhone app (eventually Android too). I'm connecting to CouchDB's port directly by using Titanium's Titanium.Network.TCPSocket object. I believe it utilizes the Apple SDK's CFSocket/NSStream class.
Once connected, I simply write:
'GET /mydb/_changes?filter=app/myfilter&feed=continuous&gameid=4&heartbeat=30000 HTTP/1.1\r\n\r\n'
directly to the socket. It keeps it open "forever" and returns JSON data whenever the db is updated and matches the filter and change request. Cool.
I'm wondering, is it ok to connect directly to CouchDB's socket like this, or would I be better off opening the socket to node.js instead, and maybe using this CouchDB node.js module to handle the CouchDB proxy through node.js?
My main concern is performance. I just don't have enough experience with CouchDB to know if hitting its socket and passing faux HTTP requests directly is good practice or not. Looking for experience and opinions on any ramifications or alternate suggestions.
It's me again. :-)
CouchDB inherits super concurrency handling from Erlang, the language it was written in. Erlang uses lightweight processes and message passing between those processes to achieve excellent performance under high concurrent load. It will take advantage of all cpu cores, too.
Nodejs runs a single process and basically only does one thing at a time within that process. Its event-based, non-blocking IO approach does allow it to multitask while it waits for chunks of IO but it still only does one thing at a time.
Both should easily handle tens of thousands of connections, but I would expect CouchDB to handle concurrency better (and with less effort on your part) than Node. And keep in mind that Node adds some latency if you put it in front of CouchDB. That may only be noticeable if you have them on different machines, though.
Writing directly to Couch via TCPSocket is a-ok as long as your write a well-formed HTTP request that follows the spec. (You're not passing a faux request...that's a real HTTP request you're sending just like any other.)
Note: HTTP 1.1 does require you to include a Host header in the request, so you'll need to correct your code to reflect that OR just use HTTP 1.0 which doesn't require it to keep things simple. (I'm curious why you're not using Titanium.Network.HTTPClient. Does it only give you the request body after the request finishes or something?)
Anyway, CouchDB can totally handle direct connections and--unless you put a lot of effort into your Node proxy--it's probably going to give users a better experience when you have 100k of them playing the game at once.
EDIT: If you use Node write an actual HTTP proxy. That will run a lot faster than using the module you provided and be simpler to implement. (Rather than defining your own API that then makes requests to Couch you can just pass certain requests on to CouchDB and block others, say, for security reasons.
Also take a look at how "multinode" works:
http://www.sitepen.com/blog/2010/07/14/multi-node-concurrent-nodejs-http-server/