I am using AKKA classic and still have to use java 6 on some machines, so I am limited on choice. I am using Netty TCP.
Many of our machines are multi interface machines, and at some point I will need to connect on more than one at a time.
Based on what I know, I think I would have to create a second ActorSystem on the second interface. UDP seems to work differently than TCP in this regard, as you don't specify an interface and it listens to them all, from what I can tell.
What is the expected way to do this?
Related
The Akka doc talks about a variety of seemingly inter-related Akka technologies without distinguishing much between them:
Akka Networking
Akka Remoting
Akka Clustering
The Akka ZeroMQ module
My understanding is that "Akka Networking" is simply a module/lib that gives Akka the ability to speak to remote actor systems over TCP. Akka Remoting is another module/lib (not contained in the core Akka JAR) that gives Akka the use of Gossip protocols. And Akka Clustering is yet another module/lib that then uses these Gossip protocols to allow remote actor systems to cluster together and sharestate changes in a viral/"service discovery"-esque manner. And my understanding of Akka ZeroMQ is that it accomplishes the same thing as Akka Clustering, except using ZeroMQ as the basis of the network connections and protocols (instead of Gossip).
So first, if my understanding of these different modules/libs are incorrect, please begin by correcting me!
Assuming I'm more or less on target here, then my main concern is that I might have Remote Actor System 1 (RAS1) using Akka Clustering (and hence Gossip) trying to communicate with Remote Actor System 2 (RAS2) which uses Akka ZeroMQ. In this case, we're using two completely different clustering technologies and protocols, so does this mean these two remote systems can't speak to each other, or does special care need to be taken so that they are compatible with each other?
Akka Remoting is what allows for one actor to speak to another actor on a different machine. For Akka Remoting to work you need to know the specific IP address (or hostname), ActorSystem name, and Actor path of the actor you want to talk to. The ActorSystem name can be different in the 2 machines.
Akka Clustering takes away the problem of having to know the specific machine you are talking to (via Cluster-aware Routing or via a Receptionist that listens for machines joining or leaving the cluster). Cluster-aware Routing also allows for things like having a minimum of X instances of an actor running on any machine in the cluster. Akka Clustering uses the Gossip protocol to maintain the list of cluster members. A cluster-enabled application must know the address of at least one host which must always be running to be able to join the cluster. There might be 2, 3 or more, but the idea is that at least one of them must always be up. Akka Clustering is built on top of Akka Remoting.
Although I haven't worked with Akka ZeroMQ, I assume it works similarly to Akka AMQP. I see it more as an alternative to Remoting, in the sense that it enables actors on different machines to talk to each other, with the advantage that none of the actors need to know any specifics about any other machines where actors are running. However, as with Remoting, you need to manually create the actors that receive the messages, whereas with Clustering the cluster takes care of it (as long as you've configured your Routers correctly).
Regarding your last question. The easiest way I can think about for a Cluster to talk to Akka ZeroMQ would be to have one (or several?) actors in the Cluster that talk to ZeroMQ actors (i.e., you can actually mix and match). Have an actor inside the Cluster that listens on the queue, and have another one that publishes the message to the queue. Sort of an Adapter pattern.
I am interested in programming a replacement for the TCP protocol at the transport layer of network communications. I still wish to use a standard/unaltered IP stack but want to layer my own replacement for TCP over it.
I am very familiar with network programming at the application layer.
What I would like to do is "install" my replacement on two windows machines that any call program designed to use TCP would use my replacement instead.
I would then test this by making a simple program between the two machines to connect a socket, send a message, and disconnect. There should be no difference to the application side on if they are using standard TCP or my implementation.
I do understand that a computer installed with my implementation would not be able to communicate with a system that doesn't have it installed as my system would use my implementation and the other would use the "standard" protocol.
I understand I am not going to revolutionize network connectivity or better what many super smart people have done. This is for personal education/edutainment purposes.
I have a certain application running on my computer. The same application can run on many computers on a LAN or different places in the world. I want to communicate between them. So I basically want a p2p system. But I will always know which computers(specific IP address) will be peers. I just want peers to have join and leave functionality. The single most important aim will be communication speed and time required. I assume simple UDP multicast (if anything like that exists) between peers will be fastest possible solution. I dont want to retransmit messages even if lost. Should I use an existing p2p library e.g. libjingle,etc. or just create some basic framework from scratch as my needs are pretty basic?
I think you're missing the point of UDP. It's not saving any time in a sense that a message gets faster to the destination, it's just you're posting the message and don't care if it arrives safely to the other side. On WAN - it will probably not arrive on the other side. UDP accross networks is problematic, as it can be thrown out by any router on the way which is tight on bandwidth - there's no guarantee of delivery for it.
I wouldn't suggest using UDP out of the topology under your control.
As to P2P vs directed sockets - the question is what it is that you need to move around. Do you need bi/multidirectional communication between all the peers, or you're talking to a single server from all the nodes?
You mentioned multicast - that would mean that you have some centralized source of data that transmits information and all the rest listen - in this case there's no benefit for P2P, and multicast, as a UDP protocol, may not work well accross multiple networks. But you can use TCP connections to each of the nodes, and "multicast" on your own, and not through IGMP. You can (and should) use threading and non-blocking sockets if you're concerned about sending blocking you, and of course you can use the QoS settings to "ask" routers to rush your sockets through.
You can use zeromq for support all network communication:
zeromq is a simple library encapsulate TCP and UDP for high level communication.
For P2P you can use the different mode of 0mq :
mode PGM/EPGM for discover member of P2P on your LAN (it use multicast)
mode REQ/REP for ask a question to one member
mode PULL/PUSH for duplicate one resource on the net
mode Publish/subscribe for transmission a file to all requester
Warning, zeromq is hard to install on windows...
And for HMI, use green-shoes ?
i think you should succeed using multicast,
unfortunately i do not know any library,
but still in case you have to do it from scratch
take a look at this:
http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Multicast-HOWTO.html
good luck :-)
I have a C++ application that currently uses a simple TCP/IP client/server model to communicate between 2 instances of itself. This works fine on a local network, but I would like this to be used across an external network. Currently, maybe due to firewall issues, it is not able to connect across an external network.
I am not an expert on networking, but I was thinking about having a dedicated server in the middle acting as a hub for communications. Will this mitigate firewall issues?
How do networked games communicate with each other? Is there usually a server in the middle or is it peer-to-peer?
In any case, I'd appreciate any advice on protocols and infrastructure to implement a network enabled application.
Regards
I think the problem is dedicated to the NAT as mentioned by cnicutar.
Maybe you want to have a look at libupnp for automatic port forwarding in the hardware firewalls (your router at home)
There is no de facto architecture for multiplayer network games. Both client-server (most MMOs, most PC FPS's and RTS's) and Peer-to-Peer (most console games) are valid approaches.
Juoni Smed's survey in his book "Algorithms and Networking for Computer Games" is a pretty good overview of the different architectures in the wild.
For the specific issues you're talking about, your need for a proxy server, as others have noted, is probably down to NAT issues - the two machines you're trying to get talking do not have public IP addresses. If you want to pursue a Peer-to-Peer architecture (or to have one of your clients act as the server, as many modern Client-Server games do) you will need your clients to talk directly to each other. This can be achieved with NAT Traversal, unfortunately this is a fiddly process.
Luckily you can use a modern framework like the excellent Raknet which includes State Synchronisation, Remote Procedure Calls AND NAT Traversal out of the box. It's free for hobbyist use and is incorporated in to several modern industrial-grade game engines.
The bane of modern internet communications is NAT. Due to NAT (which shouldn't be confused with a simple firewall) a large portion of hosts on the internet don't have a public address and thus can't (easily) accept incoming connections. NAT breaks the internet so badly that people are moving to a totally different scheme, with slightly different semantics, just to get rid of it.
There are basically two class of solutions
NAT traversal which is sometimes used for peer-to-peer communication. Usually NAT traversal schemes require some publicly accessible server for brokering the initial connection, but the actual communication is done peer-to-peer
Client-server communication. This is easier (since the server generally should have a publicly accessible address) but also kind of inefficient. For instance, say you've got a peer on the same 10Gb LAN. If you want to send him a file through the server (which happens to be in another country) it's going to take ages instead of seconds.
I'm not sure which one is "generally used". But think of it this way:
If there is the logical need for a "controller" (say 8 people are playing a strategy game) then you probably need a server
If any two peers can logically interact without a "controller", you probably want peer-to-peer communication
If you need to transfer LOTS of data fast (file transfer), you almost surely want p2p.
The easiest way to accomplish what you want is by using sockets(in case you are doing it differently). The way you are connecting your app is usually how it's done. Also if it work sin a local network and it does not over the Internet it must be a firewall issue so try opening ports in your router configuration.
You will have to give more info about your program in order to explain if you should go with peer-to-peer or with a server.
I would like to create a connection between two applications. Should I be using Client-Server or is there another way of efficiently communicating between one another? Is there any premade C++ networking client server libraries which are easy to use/reuse and implement?
Application #1 <---> (Client) <---> (Server) <---> Application #2
Thanks!
Client / server is a generic architecture pattern (much like factory, delegation, inheritance, bridge are design patterns). What you probably want is a library to eliminate the tedium of packing and unpacking your data in a format that can be sent over the wire. I strongly recommend you take a look at the protocol buffers library, which is used extensively at Google and released as open source. It will automatically encode / decode data, and it makes it possible for programs written in different languages to send and receive messages of the same type with all the dirty work done for you automatically. Protobuf only deals with encoding, not actually sending and receiving. For that, you can use primitive sockets (strongly recommend against that) or the Boost.Asio asynchronous I/O library.
I should add that you seem to be confused about the meaning of client and server, since in your diagram you have the application talking to a client which talks to a server which talks to another application. This is wrong. Your application is the client (or the server). Client / server is simply a role that your application takes on during the communication. An application is considered to be a client when it initiates a connection or a request, while an application is considered to be a server when it waits for and processes incoming requests. Client / server are simply terms to describe application behavior.
If you know the applications will be running on the same machine, you can use sockets, message queues, pipes, or shared memory. Which option you choose depends on a lot of factors.
There is a ton of example code for any of these strategies as well as libraries that will abstract away a lot of the details.
If they are running on different machines, you will want to communicate through sockets.
There's a tutorial here, with decent code samples.