I have an application A, and I want to share some information with an application B.
Application A write information each ~150ms.
Application B read information at any times.
I searched and found QSharedMemory, which looks great, but the application B will not be developed by my company, so I can't choose the programming langage.
Is QSharedMemory a good idea ?
How can I do that ?
QSharedMemory is a thin wrapper around named and unnamed platform shared memory. When named, there's simply a file that the other application can memory-map and use from any programming language, as long as said language supports binary buffers.
I do wonder if it wouldn't be easier, though, if you used a pipe for IPC. QLocalSocket encapsulates that on Qt's end, and the other side simply uses a native pipe.
Shared memory makes sense only in certain scenarios, like, say, pushing images that may not change all that much between applications - where the cost of pushing the entire image all the time would be prohibitive in the light of small-on-average bandwidth of changes. The image doesn't need to mean a visual image, it may be an industrial process image, etc.
In many cases, shared memory is a premature pseudo-optimization that makes things much harder than necessary, and can, in case of a multitude of communicating processes, become a pessimization - you do pay the cost in virtual memory for each shared memory segment.
Sounds like you need to implement a simple server, using local sockets it should be pretty fast in terms of bandwidth and easy to develop. The server will act to store data from A and deliver it to B upon request.
Obviously, it won't work "with no application" in between. Whether you go for shared memory or a local socket, you will need some server code to run at all time to service A and B. If A is running all the time, it can well be a part of it, but it can also be standalone.
It would be preferable to use a local socket, because the API for that is more portable across different programming languages, in that case A and B can be implemented in arbitrary languages and frameworks and communicate at the socket protocol level. With QSharedMemory it won't be as portable in your scenario.
Related
What is the fastest technology to send messages between C++ application processes, on Linux? I am vaguely aware that the following techniques are on the table:
TCP
UDP
Sockets
Pipes
Named pipes
Memory-mapped files
are there any more ways and what is the fastest?
Whilst all the above answers are very good, I think we'd have to discuss what is "fastest" [and does it have to be "fastest" or just "fast enough for "?]
For LARGE messages, there is no doubt that shared memory is a very good technique, and very useful in many ways.
However, if the messages are small, there are drawbacks of having to come up with your own message-passing protocol and method of informing the other process that there is a message.
Pipes and named pipes are much easier to use in this case - they behave pretty much like a file, you just write data at the sending side, and read the data at the receiving side. If the sender writes something, the receiver side automatically wakes up. If the pipe is full, the sending side gets blocked. If there is no more data from the sender, the receiving side is automatically blocked. Which means that this can be implemented in fairly few lines of code with a pretty good guarantee that it will work at all times, every time.
Shared memory on the other hand relies on some other mechanism to inform the other thread that "you have a packet of data to process". Yes, it's very fast if you have LARGE packets of data to copy - but I would be surprised if there is a huge difference to a pipe, really. Main benefit would be that the other side doesn't have to copy the data out of the shared memory - but it also relies on there being enough memory to hold all "in flight" messages, or the sender having the ability to hold back things.
I'm not saying "don't use shared memory", I'm just saying that there is no such thing as "one solution that solves all problems 'best'".
To clarify: I would start by implementing a simple method using a pipe or named pipe [depending on which suits the purposes], and measure the performance of that. If a significant time is spent actually copying the data, then I would consider using other methods.
Of course, another consideration should be "are we ever going to use two separate machines [or two virtual machines on the same system] to solve this problem. In which case, a network solution is a better choice - even if it's not THE fastest, I've run a local TCP stack on my machines at work for benchmark purposes and got some 20-30Gbit/s (2-3GB/s) with sustained traffic. A raw memcpy within the same process gets around 50-100GBit/s (5-10GB/s) (unless the block size is REALLY tiny and fits in the L1 cache). I haven't measured a standard pipe, but I expect that's somewhere roughly in the middle of those two numbers. [This is numbers that are about right for a number of different medium-sized fairly modern PC's - obviously, on a ARM, MIPS or other embedded style controller, expect a lower number for all of these methods]
I would suggest looking at this also: How to use shared memory with Linux in C.
Basically, I'd drop network protocols such as TCP and UDP when doing IPC on a single machine. These have packeting overhead and are bound to even more resources (e.g. ports, loopback interface).
NetOS Systems Research Group from Cambridge University, UK has done some (open-source) IPC benchmarks.
Source code is located at https://github.com/avsm/ipc-bench .
Project page: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/srg/netos/projects/ipc-bench/ .
Results: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/srg/netos/projects/ipc-bench/results.html
This research has been published using the results above: http://anil.recoil.org/papers/drafts/2012-usenix-ipc-draft1.pdf
Check CMA and kdbus:
https://lwn.net/Articles/466304/
I think the fastest stuff these days are based on AIO.
http://www.kegel.com/c10k.html
As you tagged this question with C++, I'd recommend Boost.Interprocess:
Shared memory is the fastest interprocess communication mechanism. The
operating system maps a memory segment in the address space of several
processes, so that several processes can read and write in that memory
segment without calling operating system functions. However, we need
some kind of synchronization between processes that read and write
shared memory.
Source
One caveat I've found is the portability limitations for synchronization primitives. Nor OS X, nor Windows have a native implementation for interprocess condition variables, for example,
and so it emulates them with spin locks.
Now if you use a *nix which supports POSIX process shared primitives, there will be no problems.
Shared memory with synchronization is a good approach when considerable data is involved.
Well, you could simply have a shared memory segment between your processes, using the linux shared memory aka SHM.
It's quite easy to use, look at the link for some examples.
posix message queues are pretty fast but they have some limitations
I'm in complete lack of understanding in this. Maybe this is too broad for stack, but here it goes:
Suppose I have two programs (written in C/C++) running simultaneously, say A and B, with different PIDs.
What are the options to make then interact with each other. For instance, how do I pass information from one to another like having one being able to wait for a signal from the other, and respond accordingly.
I know MPI, but MPI normally works for programs that are compiled using the same source (so, it works more for parallel computing than just interaction from completely different programs built to interact with each other).
Thanks
You must lookout for "IPC" (inter process communication). There are several types:
pipes
signals
shared memory
message queues
semaphores
files (per suggestion of #JonathanLeffler :-)
RPC (suggested by #sftrabbit)
Which is usually more geared towards Client/Server
CORBA
D-Bus
You use one of the many interprocess communication mechanisms, like pipes (one applications writes bytes into a pipe, the other reads from it. Imagine stdin/stdout.) or shared memory (a region of memory is mapped into both programs virtual address space and they can communicate through it).
The same source doesn't matter - once your programs are compiled the system doesn't know or care where they came from.
There are different ways to communicate between them depending on how much data, how fast, one way or bidirectional, predicatable rate etc etc....
The simplest is possibly just to use the network - note that if you are on the same machine the network stack will automatically use some higher performance system to actually send the data (ie shared memory)
I was wondering if it is possible to run an executable program without adding to its source code, like running any game across several computers. When i was programming in c# i noticed a process method, which lets you summon or close any application or process, i was wondering if there was something similar with c++ which would let me transfer the processes of any executable file or game to other computers or servers minimizing my computer's processor consumption.
thanks.
Everything is possible, but this would require a huge amount of work and would almost for sure make your program painfully slower (I'm talking about a factor of millions or billions here). Essentially you would need to make sure every layer that is used in the program allows this. So you'd have to rewrite the OS to be able to do this, but also quite a few of the libraries it uses.
Why? Let's assume you want to distribute actual threads over different machines. It would be slightly more easy if it were actual processes, but I'd be surprised many applications work like this.
To begin with, you need to synchronize the memory, more specifically all non-thread-local storage, which often means 'all memory' because not all language have a thread-aware memory model. Of course, this can be optimized, for example buffer everything until you encounter an 'atomic' read or write, if of course your system has such a concept. Now can you imagine every thread blocking for synchronization a few seconds whenever a thread has to be locked/unlocked or an atomic variable has to be read/written?
Next to that there are the issues related to managing devices. Assume you need a network connection: which device will start this, how will the ip be chosen, ...? To seamlessly solve this you probably need a virtual device shared amongst all platforms. This has to happen for network devices, filesystems, printers, monitors, ... . And as you kindly mention games: this should happen for a GPU as well, just imagine how this would impact performance in only sending data from/to the GPU (hint: even 16xpci-e is often already a bottleneck).
In conclusion: this is not feasible, if you want a clustered application, you have to build it into the application from scratch.
I believe the closest thing you can do is MapReduce: it's a paradigm which hopefully will be a part of the official boost library soon. However, I don't think that you would want to apply it to a real-time application like a game.
A related question may provide more answers: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2168558/is-there-anything-like-hadoop-in-c
But as KillianDS pointed out, there is no automagical way to do this, nor does it seem like is there a feasible way to do it. So what is the exact problem that you're trying to solve?
The current state of research is into practical means to distribute the work of a process across multiple CPU cores on a single computer. In that case, these processors still share RAM. This is essential: RAM latencies are measured in nanoseconds.
In distributed computing, remote memory access can take tens if not hundreds of microseconds. Distributed algorithms explicitly take this into account. No amount of magic can make this disappear: light itself is slow.
The Plan 9 OS from AT&T Bell Labs supports distributed computing in the most seamless and transparent manner. Plan 9 was designed to take the Unix ideas of breaking jobs into interoperating small tasks, performed by highly specialised utilities, and "everything is a file", as well as the client/server model, to a whole new level. It has the idea of a CPU server which performs computations for less powerful networked clients. Unfortunately the idea was too ambitious and way beyond its time and Plan 9 remained largerly a research project. It is still being developed as open source software though.
MOSIX is another distributed OS project that provides a single process space over multiple machines and supports transparent process migration. It allows processes to become migratable without any changes to their source code as all context saving and restoration are done by the OS kernel. There are several implementations of the MOSIX model - MOSIX2, openMosix (discontinued since 2008) and LinuxPMI (continuation of the openMosix project).
ScaleMP is yet another commercial Single System Image (SSI) implementation, mainly targeted towards data processing and Hight Performance Computing. It not only provides transparent migration between the nodes of a cluster but also provides emulated shared memory (known as Distributed Shared Memory). Basically it transforms a bunch of computers, connected via very fast network, into a single big NUMA machine with many CPUs and huge amount of memory.
None of these would allow you to launch a game on your PC and have it transparently migrated and executed somewhere on the network. Besides most games are GPU intensive and not so much CPU intensive - most games are still not even utilising the full computing power of multicore CPUs. We have a ScaleMP cluster here and it doesn't run Quake very well...
There is a lot of buzz these days about not using locks and using Message passing approaches like Erlang. Or about using immutable datastructures like in Functional programming vs. C++/Java.
But what I am concerned with is the following:
AFAIK, Erlang does not guarantee Message delivery. Messages might be lost. Won't the algorithm and code bloat and be complicated again if you have to worry about loss of messages? Whatever distributed algorithm you use must not depend on guaranteed delivery of messages.
What if the Message is a complicated object? Isn't there a huge performance penalty in copying and sending the messages vs. say keeping it in a shared location (like a DB that both processes can access)?
Can you really totally do away with shared states? I don't think so. For e.g. in a DB, you have to access and modify the same record. You cannot use message passing there. You need to have locking or assume Optimistic concurrency control mechanisms and then do rollbacks on errors. How does Mnesia work?
Also, it is not the case that you always need to worry about concurrency. Any project will also have a large piece of code that doesn't have to do anything with concurrency or transactions at all (but they do have performance and speed as a concern). A lot of these algorithms depend on shared states (that's why pass-by-reference or pointers are so useful).
Given this fact, writing programs in Erlang etc is a pain because you are prevented from doing any of these things. May be, it makes programs robust, but for things like Solving a Linear Programming problem or Computing the convex hulll etc. performance is more important and forcing immutability etc. on the algorithm when it has nothing to do with Concurrency/Transactions is a poor decision. Isn't it?
That's real life : you need to account for this possibility regardless of the language / platform. In a distributed world (the real world), things fail: live with it.
Of course there is a cost: nothing is free in our universe. But shouldn't you use another medium (e.g. file, db) instead of shuttling "big objects" in communication pipes? You can always use "message" to refer to "big objects" stored somewhere.
Of course not: the idea behind functional programming / Erlang OTP is to "isolate" as much as possible the areas were "shared state" is manipulated. Futhermore, having clearly marked places where shared state is mutated helps testability & traceability.
I believe you are missing the point: there is no such thing as a silver bullet. If your application cannot be successfully built using Erlang then don't do it. You can always some other part of the overall system in another fashion i.e. use a different language / platform. Erlang is no different from another language in this respect: use the right tool for the right job.
Remember: Erlang was designed to help solve concurrent, asynchronous and distributed problems. It isn't optimized for working efficiently on a shared block of memory for example... unless you count interfacing with nif functions working on shared blocks part of the game :-)
Real-world systems are always hybrids anyway: I don't believe the modern paradigms try, in practice, to get rid of mutable data and shared state.
The objective, however, is not to need concurrent access to this shared state. Programs can be divided into the concurrent and the sequential, and use message-passing and the new paradigms for the concurrent parts.
Not every code will get the same investment: There is concern that threads are fundamentally "considered harmful". Something like Apache may need traditional concurrent threads and a key piece of technology like that may be carefully refined over a period of years so it can blast away with fully concurrent shared state. Operating system kernels are another example where "solve the problem no matter how expensive it is" may make sense.
There is no benefit to fast-but-broken: But for new code, or code that doesn't get so much attention, it may be the case that it simply isn't thread-safe, and it will not handle true concurrency, and so the relative "efficiency" is irrelevant. One way works, and one way doesn't.
Don't forget testability: Also, what value can you place on testing? Thread-based shared-memory concurrency is simply not testable. Message-passing concurrency is. So now you have the situation where you can test one paradigm but not the other. So, what is the value in knowing that the code has been tested? The danger in not even knowing if the other code will work in every situation?
A few comments on the misunderstanding you have of Erlang:
Erlang guarantees that messages will not be lost, and that they will arrive in the order sent. A basic error situation is that machine A can not speak to machine B. When that happens process monitors and links will trigger, and system node-down messages will be sent to the processes that registered for it. Nothing will be silently dropped. Processes will "crash" and supervisors (if any) tries to restart them.
Objects can not be mutated, so they are always copied. One way to secure immutability is by copying values to other erlang process' heaps. Another way is to allocate objects in a shared heap, message references to them and simply not have any operations that mutate them. Erlang does the first for performance! Realtime suffers if you need to stop all processes to garbage collect a shared heap. Ask Java.
There is shared state in Erlang. Erlang is not proud of it, but it is pragmatic about it. One example is the local process registry which is a global map that maps a name to a process so that system processes can be restarted and claim their old name. Erlang just tries to avoid shared state if it possibly can. ETS tables that are public are another example.
Yes, sometimes Erlang is too slow. This happens all languages. Sometimes Java is too slow. Sometimes C++ is too slow. Just because a tight loop in a game had to drop down to assembly to kick off some serious SIMD-based vector mathematics you can't deduce that everything should be written in assembly because it is the only language that is fast when it matters. What matters is being able to write systems that have good performance, and Erlang manages quite well. See benchmarks on yaws or rabbitmq.
Your facts are not facts about Erlang. Even if you think Erlang programming is a pain, you will find other people create some awesome software thanks to it. You should attempt writing an IRC server in Erlang, or something else very concurrent. Even if you're never going to use Erlang again, you would have learned to think about concurrency another way. But of course, you will, because Erlang is awesome easy.
Those that do not understand Erlang are doomed to re-implement it badly.
Okay, the original was about Lisp, but... its true!
There are some implicit assumption in your questions - you assume that all the data can fit
on one machine and that the application is intrinsically localised to one place.
What happens if the application is so large it cannot fit on one machine? What happens if the application outgrows one machine?
You don't want to have one way to program an application if it fits on one machine and
a completely different way of programming it as soon as it outgrows one machine.
What happens if you want make a fault-tolerant application? To make something fault-tolerant you need at least two physically separated machines and no sharing.
When you talk about sharing and data bases you omit to mention that things like mySQL
cluster achieve fault-tolerence precisely by maintaining synchronised copies of the
data in physically separated machines - there is a lot of message passing and
copying that you don't see on the surface - Erlang just exposes this.
The way you program should not suddenly change to accommodate fault-tolerance and scalability.
Erlang was designed primarily for building fault-tolerant applications.
Shared data on a multi-core has it's own set of problems - when you access shared data
you need to acquire a lock - if you use a global lock (the easiest approach) you can end up
stopping all the cores while you access the shared data. Shared data access on a multicore
can be problematic due to caching problems, if the cores have local data caches then accessing "far away" data (in some other processors cache) can be very expensive.
Many problems are intrinsically distributed and the data is never available in one place
at the same time so - these kind of problems fit well with the Erlang way of thinking.
In a distributed setting "guaranteeing message delivery" is impossible - the destination machine might have crashed. Erlang cannot thus guarantee message delivery -
it takes a different approach - the system will tell you if it failed to deliver a message
(but only if you have used the link mechanism) - then you can write you own custom error
recovery.)
For pure number crunching Erlang is not appropriate - but in a hybrid system Erlang
is good at managing how computations get distributed to available processors, so we see a lot of systems where Erlang manages the distribution and fault-tolerent aspects of the problem, but the problem itself is solved in a different language.
and other languages are used
For e.g. in a DB, you have to access and modify the same record
But that is handled by the DB. As a user of the database, you simply execute your query, and the database ensures it is executed in isolation.
As for performance, one of the most important things about eliminating shared state is that it enables new optimizations. Shared state is not particularly efficient. You get cores fighting over the same cache lines, and data has to be written through to memory where it could otherwise stay in a register or in CPU cache.
Many compiler optimizations rely on absence of side effects and shared state as well.
You could say that a stricter language guaranteeing these things requires more optimizations to be performant than something like C, but it also makes these optimizations much much easier for the compiler to implement.
Many concerns similar to concurrency issues arise in singlethreaded code. Modern CPUs are pipelined, execute instructions out of order, and can run 3-4 of them per cycle. So even in a single-threaded program, it is vital that the compiler and CPU is able to determine which instructions can be interleaved and executed in parallel.
For correctness, shared is the way to go, and keep the data as normalized as possible. For immediacy, send messages to inform of changes, but always back them up with polling. Messages get dropped, duplicated, re-ordered, delayed - don't rely on them.
If speed is what you're worried about, first do it single-thread and tune the daylights out of it. Then if you've got multiple cores and know how to split up the work, use parallelism.
Erlang provides supervisors and gen_server callbacks for synchronous calls, so you will know about it if a message isn't delivered: either the gen_server call returns a timeout, or your whole node will be brought down and up if the supervisor is triggered.
usually if the processes are on the same node, message-passing languages optimise away the data copying, so it's almost like shared memory, except if the object is changed used by both afterward, which can not be done using shared memory either anyways
There is some state which is kept by processes by passing it around to themselves in the recursive tail-calls, also some state can be of course passed through messages. I don't use mnesia much, but it is a transactional database, so once you have passed the operation to mnesia (and it has returned) you are pretty much guaranteed it will go through..
Which is why it is easy to tie such applications into erlang with the use of ports or drivers. The easiest are the ports, it's much like a unix pipe, though I think performance isn't that great...and as said, message-passing usually ends up just being pointer passing anyways as the VM/compiler optimise the memory copy out.
my web server has a lot of dependencies for sending back data, when it gets a request. i am testing one of these dependency applications within the web server. the application is decoupled from the main web server, and only queries are going to it in the form of api's exposed.
my question is, if i wish to check these api's in a multithreaded environment (c++ functions with a 2 quadcore processor machine), what is the best wy to go about doing it?
do i call each api in a separate thread or process? if so, how do i implement such code? from what i can figure out, i would be duplicating the functioning of the web server, but i can find no other better way to figure out the performance improvements given by that component alone.
It depends on whether your app deails with data that's shared if it is run in parallel processes because that'll most likely determine where the speed bottleneck awaits.
E.g, if the app accesses a database or disk files, you'll probably have to simulate multiple threads/processes querying the app in order to see how they get along with each other, i.e. whether they have to wait for each other while accessing the shared resource.
But if the app only does some internal calculation, all by its own, then it may scale well, as long as all its data fits into memory (i.e. not virtual memory access, e.g. disk access, necessary). Then you can test the performance of just one instance and focus on optimizing its speed.
It also might help to state the OS you're planning to use. Mac OS X offers tools for performance testing and optimization that Windows and Linux may not, and vice versa.