I am using named pipes on windows (C++). I was able to send data from one unrelated process to another process.
But for this I have to start the server first. and use "CreateNamedPipe" before I run the client. Client connects to the server using "CreateFile".
Is there a way I could run the client first before starting the server? (without trying to use the "CreateFile" inside a loop till it succeed)
Thank you.
IMO, it depends on your use case. My answer will be based on a case your software doesn't require the named pipe to work. For example, let's say a software which use a named pipe to log activities. This way we can understand your software can work perfectly without logging.
It should be possible if you start up your program without requiring the named pip to exist. Then, once everything is loaded up and functional, you could have sub-routine periodically checking for the named pipe existence (let's say every 5 seconds in order to not overload your CPU) and once created, you start using it.
Note: it will still looks like an infinite "a loop till it succeed" but I don't see anything wrong with that since you do it properly, says, you run it with non-blocking mechanism.
Note: it doesn't necessarily implies multi-process techniques. You can imagine a single main loop with a periodic checking (not every iteration).
Related
So, the profiler is written in c++ and is launched by the CLR automatically when the process to be profiled is launched. The process then launches another application (the main target of profiling). Profiler is launched for this process also. All this is taken care of, but the problem is:
Only one of these two profilers can communicate with the front end application via NamedPipe. I need both the profilers to write on the same pipe so that the front end application remains straight-forward and simple. Is this possible using some kind of semaphore to ensure that one of the processes write to the pipe at one time? I use the CreateFile() function to open the pipe in the profiler.
Is it possible to create a windows service to create and maintain another process? Like I'm writing a program, and say a virus killed the process, could I have my window service running and basically 'watching' it? I already have the code for a regular application that stays running and executes a program if it's not currently running, to keep it running.
I've never written a service before, but would it be that hard to just write this simple program, which basically runs a check to see if the process is running, if not, it executes it and sleeps for a few minutes?
Thanks.
Yes, it is possible. It is not uncommon to see third-party apps have watchdog services to keep them running in case of crashes. A service can enumerate running processes using EnumProcesses(), and if the desired executable is not running then start a new copy of it using CreateProcessAsUser().
If the service is the one starting the executable process in the first place, or can find it after an enumeration, one optimization would be to keep an open handle to the process (returned by CreateProcess...(), or use OpenProcess() on the process ID an enumeration returns), and then use a wait function, like WaitForSingleObject(), to detect when the process stops running. That way, you don't have to enumerate processes to find out if the intended process is still running or not.
So here is the situation, we have a C++ datafeed client program which we run ~30 instances of with different parameters, and there are 3 scripts written to run/stop them: start.sh stop.sh and restart.sh (which runs stop.sh and then start.sh).
When there is a high volume of data the client "falls behind" real time. We test this by comparing the system time to the most recent data entry times listed. If any of the clients falls behind more than 10 minutes or so, I want to call the restart script to start all the binaries fresh so our data is as close to real time as possible.
Normally I call a script using System(script.sh), however the restart script looks up and kills the process using kill, BUT calling System() also makes the current program execution ignore SIGQUIT and SIGINT until system() returns.
On top of this if there are two concurrent executions with the same arguments they will conflict and the program will hang (this stems from establishing database connections), so I can not start the new instance until the old one is killed and I can not kill the current one if it ignores SIGQUIT.
Is there any way around this? The current state of the binary and missing some data does not matter at all if it has reached the threshold, I also can not just have the program restart itself, since if one of the instances falls behind, we want to restart all 30 of the instances (so gaps in the data are at uniform times). Is there a clean way to call a script from within C++ which hands over control and allows the script to restart the program from scratch?
FYI we are running on CentOS 6.3
Use exec() instead of system(). It will replace your process with the new one. Note there is a significant different in how exec() is called and how it behaves: system() passes its string argument to the system shell to run. exec() actually executes an executable file, and you need to supply the arguments to the process one at a time, instead of letting the shell parse them apart for you.
Here's my two cents.
Temporary solution: Use SIGKILL.
Long-term solution: Optimize your code or the general logic of your service tree, using other system calls like exec or by rewritting it to use threads.
If you want better answers maybe you should post some code and or degeneralize the issue.
I have two applications running on my machine. One is supposed to hand in the work and other is supposed to do the work. How can I make sure that the first application/process is in wait state. I can verify via the resources its consuming, but that does not guarantee so. What tools should I use?
Your 2 applications shoud communicate. There are a lot of ways to do that:
Send messages through sockets. This way the 2 processes can run on different machines if you use normal network sockets instead of local ones.
If you are using C you can use semaphores with semget/semop/semctl. There should be interfaces for that in other languages.
Named pipes block until there is both a read and a write operation in progress. You can use that for synchronisation.
Signals are also good for this. In C it is called sendmsg/recvmsg.
DBUS can also be used and has bindings for variuos languages.
Update: If you can't modify the processing application then it is harder. You have to rely on some signs that indicate the progress. (I am assuming you processing application reads a file, does some processing then writes the result to an output file.) Do you know the final size the result should be? If so you need to check the size repeatedly (or whenever it changes).
If you don't know the size but you know how the processing works you may be able to use that. For example the processing is done when the output file is closed. You can use strace to see all the system calls including the close. You can replace the close() function with the LD_PRELOAD environment variable (on windows you have to replace dlls). This way you can sort of modify the processing program without actually recompiling or even having access to its source.
you can use named pipes - the first app will read from it but it will be blank and hence it will keep waiting (blocked). The second app will write into it when it wants the first one to continue.
Nothing can guarantee that your application is in waiting state. You have to pass it some work and get back a response. It might be transactions or not - application can confirm that it got the message to process before it starts to process it or after it was processed (successfully or not). If it does not wait, passing a piece of work should fail. Whether when trying to write to a TCP/IP socket or other means, or if timeout occurs. This depends on implementation, what kind of transport you are using and other requirements.
There is actually a way of figuring out if the process (thread) is in blocking state and waiting for data on a socket (or other source), but that means that client should be on the same computer and have access privileges required to do that, but that makes no sense other than debugging, which you can do using any debugger anyway.
Overall, the idea of making sure that application is waiting for data before trying to pass it that data smells bad. Not to mention the racing condition - what if you checked and it was OK, and when you actually tried to send the data, you found out that application is not waiting at that time (even if that is microseconds).
I have a simple c++ application that generates reports on the back end of my web app (simple LAMP setup). The problem is the back end loads a data file that takes about 1.5GB in memory. This won't scale very well if multiple users are running it simultaneously, so my thought is to split into several programs :
Program A is the main executable that is always running on the server, and always has the data loaded, and can actually run reports.
Program B is spawned from php, and makes a simple request to program A to get the info it needs, and returns the data.
So my questions are these:
What is a good mechanism for B to ask A to do something?
How should it work when A has nothing to do? I don't really want to be polling for tasks or otherwise spinning my tires.
Use a named mutex/event, basically what this does is allows one thread (process A in your case) to sit there hanging out waiting. Then process B comes along, needing something done, and signals the mutex/event this wakes up process A, and you proceed.
If you are on Microsoft :
Mutex, Event
Ipc on linux works differently, but has the same capability:
Linux Stuff
Or alternatively, for the c++ portion you can use one of the boost IPC libraries, which are multi-platform. I'm not sure what PHP has available, but it will no doubt have something equivalent.
Use TCP sockets running on localhost.
Make the C++ application a daemon.
The PHP front-end creates a persistent connection to the daemon. pfsockopen
When a request is made, the PHP sends a request to the daemon which then processes and sends it all back. PHP Sockets C++ Sockets
EDIT
Added some links for reference. I might have some really bad C code that uses sockets of interprocess communication somewhere, but nothing handy.
IPC is easy on C++, just call the POSIX C API.
But what you're asking would be much better served by a queue manager. Make the background daemon wait for a message on the queue, and the frontend PHP just add there the specifications of the task it wants processed. Some queue managers allow the result of the task to be added to the same object, or you can define a new queue for the finish messages.
One of the best known high-performance queue manager is RabbitMQ. Another one very easy to use is MemcacheQ.
Or, you could just add a table to MySQL for tasks, the background process just queries periodically for unfinished ones. This works and can be very reliable (sometimes called Ghetto queues), but break down at high tasks/second.