I am currently developing the server part of a game (MMORPG) and I am stuck on a point that seems to me quite important: how to manage the packets received by the clients and their logic?
Let me explain: I know how to get a connection from a client, how to store the socket of this client but I don't know how to manage packets that it will send later and apply the modifications on the server (all asynchronously).
I had thought of 2 solutions:
1) As soon as the server detects a client connection, it creates a thread for the client. So there is 1 thread per client that will handle the packets of a single client. But in this case, the more clients there are, the more processor will be called right?
2) As soon as the server detects a new client, it stores it in a list. A thread will loop on the client list and see if the current client is sending a packet. If so, it manages it. But this solution also poses a problem: how to manage this packet? Create a new thread specifically for this packet? But I come back to the starting point: too many packets will overload the machine.
A friend offered me a third solution: make a mixture of both. In this way, a thread would take care of NB_MAX_CLIENT.
I would like to know if there are other ways of doing that.
I'm on Windows. I develop with Visual Studio in C ++ and I use the Winsocks.
Thanks in advance and sorry for my bad english.
As soon as the server detects a client connection, it creates a thread for the client. So there is 1 thread per client that will handle the packets of a single client. But in this case, the more clients there are, the more processor will be called right?
This is fairly common unless you are running out of RAM from the stacks that each thread requires (typically OS threads require an OS stack per physical thread). The other issue is too many context switches that might make you consider otherwise.
Avoiding the thread issue is really difficult because you lose the ability to do anything per client without pivoting off a data structure since you have no idea what stack will handle the next packet.
As soon as the server detects a new client, it stores it in a list. A thread will loop on the client list and see if the current client is sending a packet. If so, it manages it. But this solution also poses a problem: how to manage this packet?
Typically you setup a producer consumer set of threads for this. One producer gets each packet and sends it to a queue which is then consumed by some number of worker threads that just handle each item.
Honestly doing this correctly requires a ton of work (as in an example of it was a major piece of technology that Netflix developed) you probably should avoid it to simplify things.
Especially since RAM is cheap and 1MB per thread requires concurrency that will knock you over from other problems before your dedicated thread stacks kill you. (Similarly when context switches become your biggest issue you are pretty far along unless you are doing something unrelated to this discussion wrong).
Related
i got a very specific question about server programming in UNIX (Debian, kernel 2.6.32). My goal is to learn how to write a server which can handle a huge amount of clients. My target is more than 30 000 concurrent clients (even when my college mentions that 500 000 are possible, which seems QUIIITEEE a huge amount :-)), but i really don't know (even whats possible) and that is why I ask here. So my first question. How many simultaneous clients are possible? Clients can connect whenever they want and get in contact with other clients and form a group (1 group contains a maximum of 12 clients). They can chat with each other, so the TCP/IP package size varies depending on the message sent.
Clients can also send mathematical formulas to the server. The server will solve them and broadcast the answer back to the group. This is a quite heavy operation.
My current approach is to start up the server. Than using fork to create a daemon process. The daemon process binds the socket fd_listen and starts listening. It is a while (1) loop. I use accept() to get incoming calls.
Once a client connects I create a pthread for that client which will run the communication. Clients get added to a group and share some memory together (needed to keep the group running) but still every client is running on a different thread. Getting the access to the memory right was quite a hazzle but works fine now.
In the beginning of the programm i read out the /proc/sys/kernel/threads-max file and according to that i create my threads. The amount of possible threads according to that file is around 5000. Far away from the amount of clients i want to be able to serve.
Another approach i consider is to use select () and create sets. But the access time to find a socket within a set is O(N). This can be quite long if i have more than a couple of thousands clients connected. Please correct me if i am wrong.
Well, i guess i need some ideas :-)
Groetjes
Markus
P.S. i tag it for C++ and C because it applies to both languages.
The best approach as of today is an event loop like libev or libevent.
In most cases you will find that one thread is more than enough, but even if it isn't, you can always have multiple threads with separate loops (at least with libev).
Libev[ent] uses the most efficient polling solution for each OS (and anything is more efficient than select or a thread per socket).
You'll run into a couple of limits:
fd_set size: This is changable at compile time, but has quite a low limit by default, this affects select solutions.
Thread-per-socket will run out of steam far earlier - I suggest putting the longs calculations in separate threads (with pooling if required), but otherwise a single thread approach will probably scale.
To reach 500,000 you'll need a set of machines, and round-robin DNS I suspect.
TCP ports shouldn't be a problem, as long as the server doesn't connection back to the clients. I always seem to forget this, and have to be reminded.
File descriptors themselves shouldn't be too much of a problem, I think, but getting them into your polling solution may be more difficult - certainly you don't want to be passing them in each time.
I think you can use the event model(epoll + worker threads pool) to solve this problem.
first listen and accept in main thread, if the client connects to the server, the main thread distribute the client_fd to one worker thread, and add epoll list, then this worker thread will handle the reqeust from the client.
the number of worker thread can be configured by the problem, and it must be no more the the 5000.
I've already developed some online games (like chess, checkers, risk clone) using server side programming (PHP and C++) and Flash (for the GUI). Now, I'd like to develop some kind of game portal (like www.mytopia.com). In order to do so, I must decide what is a good way to structure my server logic.
At first I thought in programming separated game servers for each game. In this way, each game will be an isolated program that opens a specific port to the client. I thought also in creating different servers to each game room (each game room allow 100 clients connected on the same time). Of course I'd use database to link everything (like highscores, etc).
Then, I guess it is not the best way to structure a game portal server. I'm reading about thread programming and I think that is the best way to do it. So, I thought in doing something like a connection thread that will listen only to new connection clients (that way every type of game client will connect in only one port), validate this client (login) and then tranfer this client to the specific game thread (like chess thread, checkers thread, etc). I'll be using select (or variants) to handle the asynchronous clients (I guess the "one thread per client" is not suited this time). This structure seems to be the best but how do I make the communication between threads? I've read about race conditions and global scope variables, so one solution is to have a global clients array (vector or map) that need to be locked by connection thread or game thread everytime it is changed (new connection, logout, change states, etc). Is it right?
Has anyone worked in anything like this? Any recommendations?
Thanks very much
A portal needs to be robust, scalable and extensible so that you can cope with larger audiences, more games/servers being added, etc. A good place to start is to look into the way MMOs and distributed systems are designed. This might help too: http://onlinegametechniques.blogspot.com/
Personally, I'd centralise the users by having an authentication server, then a separate game server for each game that validates users against the authentication server.
If you use threads you might have an easier time sharing data but you'll have to be more careful about security for exactly the same reason. That of course doesn't address MT issues in general.
TBH I've been doing a voip system where the server can send out many streams and the client can listen to many streams. The best architecture I've come up with so far is just to bind to a single port and use sendto and recvfrom to handle communications. If i receive a valid connect packet from a client on a new address then I add the client to an internal list and begin sending audio data to them. The packet receive and response management (RRM) all happens in one thread. The audio, as it becomes ready, then gets sent to all the clients from the audio thread. The clients respond saying they received the audio and that gets handle on the RRM thread. If the client fails to respond for longer than 30 seconds then I send a disconnect and remove the client from my internal list. I don't need to be particularly fault tolerant.
As for how to do this in a games situation my main thought was to send a set of impulse vectors (the current one and 'n' previous ones). This way if the client moves out of sync it can check how out of sync it is by checking the last few impulses it should have received for a given object. If it doesn't correspond to what its got then it can either correct or if it is too far out of sync it can ask for a game state reset. The idea being to try and avoid doig a full game state reset as it is going to be quite an expensive thing to do.
Obviously each packet would be hashed so the client can check the validity of incoming packets but it also allows for the client to ignore an invalid packet and still get the info it needs in the next update and thus helping prevent the state reset.
On top of that its worth doing things like keeping an eye on where the client is. There is no point in sending updates to a client when the client is looking in the other direction or there is something in the way (ie the client can't see the object its being told about). This also limits the effectiveness of a wallhack packet sniffing the incoming packets. Obviously you have to start sending things a tad before the object becomes visible, however, or you will get things popping into existence at inconvenient moments.
Anyway ... thats just some random thoughts. I have to add that I've never actually written a multiplayer engine for a game so I hope my musings help ya a bit :)
I'm working on a framework in C++ (just for fun for now), that lets the user write plugins that use a standard API to stream data between each other. There's going to be three basic transport mechanisms for the data: files, sockets, and some kind of IPC piping system. The system is set up so that for the non-file transport, each stream can have multiple readers. IE once a server socket it setup, multiple computers can connect and stream the data. I'm a little stuck at the multi-reader IPC system though.
All my plugins run in threads (though I may want to go to a process-based system eventually) so they live in the same address space, so some kind of shared memory system would work fine, I was thinking I'd write my own circular buffer with a write pointer and read pointers chassing it around the buffer, but I have my doubts that I can achieve the same performance as something like linux pipes.
I'm curious what people would suggest for a multi-reader solution to something like this? Is the overhead for pipes or domain sockets low enough that I could just open a connection to each reader and issue separate writes to each reader? This is intended to be significant volumes of data (tens of mega-samples/sec), so performance is a must.
I develop a media server, and i usually use a single reader for a group of all active sockets of the same class. You can use a select() (in a blocking or non blocking mode) function for each group to read the sockets that became ready to be read. When a socket data is ready or a new connection occur i just call a notify callback function to manage it.
Each reader (that controls a group of sockets) could be managed by a separate thread, avoiding your main threads to block while waiting for new connections or socket data.
If I understand the description correctly, it seems to me that using a circular queue as you mention would be a good IPC solution. I think it could scale very well and would ultimately be better than individual pipes or individual shared memory for each client. One (of several) of the issues of using a single queue/buffer for multiple clients is to synchronize access to the buffers. A client needs to be able to successfully read an entry in the queue without the server changing it. Here is a possible mechanism for implementing that.
This requires that the server know how many active clients there are. That, I assume, would be possible as long as the clients are doing some kind of registration/login with the server (almost certainly true if they are in-process but not necessarily true for out-of-process clients).
Suppose there are N clients. For this example, assume 100 active clients.
Maintain two counting semaphores for each entry in the circular queue. If using out-of-process clients, these need to be shared between processes. Call the semaphores SemReady and SemDone.
Use SemReady to indicate that the buffer is ready for clients to read. The server writes to the buffer entry and then sets the value of the semaphore to the number of clients (100 in this case). More on this in a bit.
When a client wants to read an entry in the queue, it waits on the associated SemReady semaphore. If the initial value is at 100, then all 100 clients can successfully get the semaphore and “concurrently” read the data.
When a client is done reading/using the entry, it increments/releases the SemDone semaphore.
When a server wants to write to a buffer entry, it needs to make sure of two things: a) no clients are currently reading it, and b) no clients start to read it once the server is writing to it.
Therefore, first, block any further access to the buffer by waiting on the SemReady semaphore until the count is zero (obviously, use a zero timeout). When it hits zero, the server knows that no additional clients will start reading it.
To know that clients are done with the buffer, the server uses the SemDone semaphore. It checks the SemDone and waits until it is at value is at N minus the number of waits it did on SemReady. In other words, if SemReady was at zero, then it means all clients read the buffer entry, therefore, SemDone should be at N (100) when they are done. If, though, the server waited 10 times on SemReady, then SemDone should be at 90 (N-10) when all clients are done.
The above step needs some kind of timeout and status check on client “liveness” in case a client crashes/quits after getting SemReady and before releasing SemDone. Also, it would need to account for the possibility of new client registering during that step as well in order to keep the semaphore count values in sync.
Once the server has found no more clients are reading the buffer, it can reset SemDone to zero, write new data to the entry, and set SemReady to N (100).
Rinse and repeat.
Note 1 There are other synchronization issues to maintain the head/tail of the circular queue so that clients know where it is.
Note 2 SemDone could probably be an integer counter handled with atomic increments… I think it could anyway. Needs a bit of thought.
Note 3 It might make sense to have multiple threads in the server writing to the buffer entries. That way, if the server has to wait/timeout a bit on a crashed client that started reading but did not finish, it would not block subsequent queue entries that other clients might already be waiting for.
I have a game I am working on in C++ and OpenGL. I have made a threaded server that right now accepts clients (the game) and receives messages from them. Right now the game only sends messages. I want both the game and server to be able to send and receive, but I'm not sure the best way to go about it. I was considering using a thread for sending and one for receiving, both on the same socket. Right now the game runs in a single thread, and the server makes a separate thread for each client.
Looking for suggestions on how to go about it for the game as well as the server (unless your suggestion is the same for both). Any questions, feel free to ask :)
Thanks!
What you need to do is set up an outgoing queue of messages for each client. Say you have 2 clients connected to the server, one being serviced by thread A and the other by thread B. Thread A should do a WaitOnMultipleObjects() on its socket and on a semaphore/mutex/condition variable for its queue. That way, if it gets something in its queue, it can wake up and send it out. If it gets a message from the client that it needs no give to client B, it will process that message and put it in thread B's outgoing queue.
This is a very simple synchronization scheme. If your game is very complex or massive, you will have to do something much more clever than this.
Don't use threads in a game server. Many professional, AAA game servers are single-threaded - every one I've ever seen, in fact.
Consider using Boost.ASIO that implements this well with a C++ API (allowing many different approaches besides just asynchronous I/O). There are plenty of tutorials. However, for the absolute highest performance, you should probably not use threads.
I'm programming an online game for two reasons, one to familiarize myself with server/client requests in a realtime environment (as opposed to something like a typical web browser, which is not realtime) and to actually get my hands wet in that area, so I can proceed to actually properly design one.
Anywho, I'm doing this in C++, and I've been using winsock to handle my basic, basic network tests. I obviously want to use a framelimiter and have 3D going and all of that at some point, and my main issue is that when I do a send() or receive(), the program kindly idles there and waits for a response. That would lead to maybe 8 fps on even the best internet connection.
So the obvious solution to me is to take the networking code out of the main process and start it up in its own thread. Ideally, I would call a "send" in my main process which would pass the networking thread a pointer to the message, and then periodically (every frame) check to see if the networking thread had received the reply, or timed out, or what have you. In a perfect world, I would actually have 2 or more networking threads running simultaneously, so that I could say run a chat window and do a background download of a piece of armor and still allow the player to run around all at once.
The bulk of my problem is that this is a new thing to me. I understand the concept of threading, but I can see some serious issues, like what happens if two threads try to read/write the same memory address at the same time, etc. I know that there are already methods in place to handle this sort of thing, so I'm looking for suggestions on the best way to implement something like this. Basically, I need thread A to be able to start a process in thread B by sending a chunk of data, poll thread B's status, and then receive the reply, also as a chunk of data., ideally without any major crashing going on. ^_^ I'll worry about what that data actually contains and how to handle dropped packets, etc later, I just need to get that happening first.
Thanks for any help/advice.
PS: Just thought about this, may make the question simpler. Is there a way to use the windows event handling system to my advantage? Like, would it be possible to have thread A initialize data somewhere, then trigger an event in thread B to have it pick up the data, and vice versa for thread B to tell thread A it was done? That would probably solve a lot of my problems, since I don't really need both threads to be able to work on the data at the same time, more of a baton pass really. I just don't know if this is possible between two different threads. (I know one thread can create its own messages for the event handler.)
The easiest thing
for you to do, would be to simply invoke the windows API QueueUserWorkItem. All you have to specify is the function that the thread will execute and the input passed to it. A thread pool will be automatically created for you and the jobs executed in it. New threads will be created as and when is required.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms684957(VS.85).aspx
More Control
You could have a more detailed control using another set of API's which can again manage the thread pool for you -
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms686980(VS.85).aspx
Do it yourself
If you want to control all aspects of your thread creation and the pool management you would have to create the threads yourself, decide how they should end , how many to create etc (beginthreadex is the api you should be using to create threads. If you use MFC you should use AfxBeginThread function).
Send jobs to worker threads - Io completion Ports
In this case, you would also have to worry about how to communicate your jobs - i would recommend IoCOmpletionPorts to do that. It is the most scalable notification mechanism that i currently know of made for this purpose. It has the additional advantage that it is implemented in the kernel so you avoid all kinds of dead loack sitautions you would encounter if you decide to handroll something yourself.
This article will show you how with code samples -
http://blogs.msdn.com/larryosterman/archive/2004/03/29/101329.aspx
Communicate Back - Windows Messages
You could use windows messages to communicate the status back to your parent thread since it is doing the message wait anyway. use the PostMessage function to do this. (and check for errors)
ps : You could also allocate the data that needs to be sent out on a dedicated pointer and then the worker thread could take care of deleting it after sending it out. That way you avoid the return pointer traffic too.
BlodBath's suggestion of non-blocking sockets is potentially the right approach.
If you're trying to avoid using a multithreaded approach, then you could investigate the use of setting up overlapped I/O on your sockets. They will not block when you do a transmit or receive, but have the added bonus of giving you the option of waiting for multiple events within your single event loop. When your transmit has finished, you will receive an event. (see this for some details)
This is not incompatible with a multithreaded approach, so there's the option of changing your mind later. ;-)
On the design of your multithreaded app. the best thing to do is to work out all of the external activities that you want to be alerted to. For example, so far in your question you've listed network transmits, network receives, and user activity.
Depending on the number of concurrent connections you're going to be dealing with you'll probably find it conceptually simpler to have a thread per socket (assuming small numbers of sockets), where each thread is responsible for all of the processing for that socket.
Then you can implement some form of messaging system between your threads as RC suggested.
Arrange your system so that when a message is sent to a particular thread and event is also sent. Your threads can then be sent to sleep waiting for one of those events. (as well as any other stimulus - like socket events, user events etc.)
You're quite right that you need to be careful of situations where more than one thread is trying to access the same piece of memory. Mutexes and semaphores are the things to use there.
Also be aware of the limitations that your gui has when it comes to multithreading.
Some discussion on the subject can be found in this question.
But the abbreviated version is that most (and Windows is one of these) GUIs don't allow multiple threads to perform GUI operations simultaneously. To get around this problem you can make use of the message pump in your application, by sending custom messages to your gui thread to get it to perform gui operations.
I suggest looking into non-blocking sockets for the quick fix. Using non-blocking sockets send() and recv() do not block, and using the select() function you can get any waiting data every frame.
See it as a producer-consumer problem: when receiving, your network communication thread is the producer whereas the UI thread is the consumer. When sending, it's just the opposite. Implement a simple buffer class which gives you methods like push and pop (pop should be blocking for the network thread and non-blocking for the UI thread).
Rather than using the Windows event system, I would prefer something that is more portable, for example Boost condition variables.
I don't code games, but I've used a system similar to what pukku suggested. It lends nicely to doing things like having the buffer prioritize your messages to be processed if you have such a need.
I think of them as mailboxes per thread. You want to send a packet? Have the ProcessThread create a "thread message" with the payload to go on the wire and "send" it to the NetworkThread (i.e. push it on the NetworkThread's queue/mailbox and signal the condition variable of the NetworkThread so he'll wake up and pull it off). When the NetworkThread receives the response, package it up in a thread message and send it back to the ProcessThread in the same manner. Difference is the ProcessThread won't be blocked on a condition variable, just polling on mailbox.empty( ) when you want to check for the response.
You may want to push and pop directly, but a more convenient way for larger projects is to implement a toThreadName, fromThreadName scheme in a ThreadMsg base class, and a Post Office that threads register their Mailbox with. The PostOffice then has a send(ThreadMsg*); function that gets/pushes the messages to the appropriate Mailbox based on the to and from. Mailbox (the buffer/queue class) contains the ThreadMsg* = receiveMessage(), basically popping it off the underlying queue.
Depending on your needs, you could have ThreadMsg contain a virtual function process(..) that could be overridden accordingly in derived classes, or just have an ordinary ThreadMessage class with a to, from members and a getPayload( ) function to get back the raw data and deal with it directly in the ProcessThread.
Hope this helps.
Some topics you might be interested in:
mutex: A mutex allows you to lock access to specific resources for one thread only
semaphore: A way to determine how many users a certain resource still has (=how many threads are accessing it) and a way for threads to access a resource. A mutex is a special case of a semaphore.
critical section: a mutex-protected piece of code (street with only one lane) that can only be travelled by one thread at a time.
message queue: a way of distributing messages in a centralized queue
inter-process communication (IPC) - a way of threads and processes to communicate with each other through named pipes, shared memory and many other ways (it's more of a concept than a special technique)
All topics in bold print can be easily looked up on a search engine.