I wrote a c++ grpc client, and wanted to create multiple connection by create multiple channel, just like the hello world example.
But only one connection for the specific address was created. So how to create multiple connection to the server?
Honestly, I don't see significant reasons for that (at least for basic use cases). You don't need to create multiple connections to have some kind of connection pooling (as you might want to do while connecting to RDBMS like PostgreSQL). The bandwidth of physical transport (TCP connection) will be fully utilized by the single network connection.
Related
In linux, axel is generally faster than wget. The reason is that axel opens multiple channels (connections) to the source and downloads the pieces of a file simultaneously.
So, the short version of my question is: Would doing the same with boost::asio make the connection transfer data faster?
By looking at these simple examples of a client and a server, I could make a single connection initiate multiple client instances, and connect to the same server with multiple sessions. In the communication protocol, I can make the client and server ready for such connections in such a way, where data is split among all the connection channels.
Could someone please explain to me why this should or shouldn't work out based on the scenarios I drew?
Please ask for more details if you need it.
I've been reading around on the www but just can't get the most important basics of P2P.
The diagram is like this:
[peer1]<-->[dsl-router1]<-->[central server]<-->[dsl-router2]<-->[peer2]
I'm developing a chat software on the central server. Chat messages being transfered thru' the central server well by now, however, I need to make the p2p file sharing feature because the bandwidth (the cable bandwith, not the transfer limit) of the server supposed for transfering chat messages only.
The problem is that, my software on central server knows the IPs and ports of router1 and router2, but not the peer1 and peer2 as these peers are behind the routers and don't have IP addresses.
How to actually transfer some data from peer1 to peer2 and vice versa without having this data passing thru' central server?
(and the worst case is that there is a wireless router between peer and dsl-router)
There are two basic ways of doing this. The new way is to use IGDP (opening a port via uPnP). This is described quite well here:
http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/13285/Using-UPnP-for-Programmatic-Port-Forwardings-and-N
If neither of the two nodes have a router supporting uPnP then another alternative is TCP hole punching, which is not perfect but works quite well in practice. This is described here:
http://www.brynosaurus.com/pub/net/p2pnat/
During some situations, "routers" supplied by the ISP may run on bridge mode, which directly exposes the peer computer on the internet (the computer gets a public internet address). If at least one side has this configuration (or in a similar situation that the peer client is not behind another device), then things should be rather straight forward: simply assign the central server's job to whoever that have this privilege.
In the other case where both peers only have a local address (e.g. 192.168.0.2) assigned to their computers, it would then be rather difficult to get through the routers; clients behind routers are for the most part unreachable from the outside unless they originated the request. Then, one solution to the problem is port forwarding. By doing port forwarding, either through explicitly written rules or UPnP, some ports on the peer computer is exposed to the public internet, as in the first situation where instead of only some ports the entire computer is exposed.
If you are without either of these, then there is no simple way to avoid sending through the central server. Though you could, potentially, find other peers who have the capability to transfer for others.
When designing a client/server architecture, is there any advantage to multiplexing multiple connections from the same process to the remote server (i.e. sharing one connection) vs opening one connection per thread/session in the client (as is typically done when connecting to memcached or database servers.)
I know there's a bit of overhead associated with each connection (e.g. if a server has 50,000 open connections that uses up a lot of RAM) this was one major reason why facebook made a UDP patch for memcached. But I don't expect to have anywhere near that number. Maybe 10,000 at the most. There's also savings in establishing a tcp/ip connection and doing authorization, but for now I'd rather leave authorization to firewall software as memcached does.
Are there any reasons to implement multiplexing connections in a tcp/ip client/server application with less than 10K connections?
Edit - Details:
This is for a database server/client I'm working on. I think that Informix and Oracle do actually allow for session multiplexing over one tcp/ip connection. In the Informix documentation they say you may get a performance improvement for nonthreaded clients (no mention of multi-threaded clients, perhaps it's not a thread-safe implementation.)
is there any advantage to multiplexing multiple connections vs opening one connection per thread/session
Yes, though it depends on the implementation of the simplex. You probably know about the firewall hassle with e.g. FTP, SIP et al, especially when encryption is used partway. This is what influences the decision whether to use multiple, or just one connection.
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'm reading about way to implemnt client-server in the most efficient manner, and i bumped into that link :
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms740550(VS.85).aspx
saying :
"Concurrent connections should not exceed two, except in special purpose applications. Exceeding two concurrent connections results in wasted resources. A good rule is to have up to four short lived connections, or two persistent connections per destination "
i can't quite get what they mean by 2... and what do they mean by persistent?
let's say i have a server who listens to many clients , whom suppose to do some work with the server, how can i keep just 2 connections open ?
what's the best way to implement it anyway ? i read a little about completion port , but couldn't find a good examples of code, or at least a decent explanation.
thanks
Did you read the last sentence:
A good rule is to have up to four
short lived connections, or two
persistent connections per
destination.
Hard to say from the article, but by destination I think they mean client. This isn't a very good article.
A persistent connection is where a client connects to the server and then performs all its actions without ever dropping the connection. Even if the client has periods of time when it does not need the server, it maintains its connection to the server ready for when it might need it again.
A short lived connection would be one where the client connects, performs its action and then disconnects. If it needs more help from the server it would re-connect to the server and perform another single action.
As the server implementing the listening end of the connection, you can set options in the listening TCP/IP socket to limit the number of connections that will be held at the socket level and decide how many of those connections you wish to accept - this would allow you to accept 2 persistent connections or 4 short lived connections as required.
What they mean by, "persistent," is a connection that is opened, and then held open. It's pretty common problem to determine whether it's more expensive to tie up resources with an "always on" connection, or suffer the overhead of opening and closing a connection every time you need it.
It may be worth taking a step back, though.
If you have a server that has to listen for requests from a bunch of clients, you may have a perfect use case for a message-based architecture. If you use tightly-coupled connections like those made with TCP/IP, your clients and servers are going to have to know a lot about each other, and you're going to have to write a lot of low-level connection code.
Under a message-based architecture, your clients could place messages on a queue. The server could then monitor that queue. It could take messages off the queue, perform work, and place the responses back on the queue, where the clients could pick them up.
With such a design, the clients and servers wouldn't have to know anything about each other. As long as they could place properly-formed messages on the queue, and connect to the queue, they could be implemented in totally different languages, and run on different OS's.
Messaging-oriented-middleware like Apache ActiveMQ and Weblogic offer API's you could use from C++ to manage and use queues, and other messaging objects. ActiveMQ is open source, and Weblogic is sold by Oracle (who bought BEA). There are many other great messaging servers out there, so use these as examples, to get you started, if messaging sounds like it's worth exploring.
I think key words are "per destination". Single tcp connection tries to accelerate up to available bandwidth. So if you allow more connections to same destination, they have to share same bandwidth.
This means that each transfer will be slower than it could be and server has to allocate more resources for longer time - data structures for each connection.
Because establishing tcp connection is "time consuming", it makes sense to allow establish second connection in time when you are serving first one, so they are overlapping each other. for short connections setup time could be same as for serving the connection itself (see poor performance example), so more connections are needed for filling all bandwidth effectively.
(sorry I cannot post hyperlinks yet)
here msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms738559%28VS.85%29.aspx you can see, what is poor performance.
here msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc300760.aspx is some example of threaded server what performs reasonably well.
you can limit number of open connections by limiting number of accept() calls. you can limit number of connections from same source just by canceling connection when you find out, that you allready have more then two connections from this location (just count them).
For example SMTP works in similar way. When there are too many connections, it returns 4xx code and closes your connection.
Also see this question:
What is the best epoll/kqueue/select equvalient on Windows?