I have implemented a zmq library using push / pull on windows. There is a server and up to 64 clients running over loopback. Each client can send and receive to the server. There is a thread that waits for each client to connect on a pull zmq socket. Clients can go away at any time.
The server is expected to go down at times and when it comes back up the clients need to reconnect to it.
The problem is that when nothing is connected I have 64 receive threads waiting for a connection. This shows up as a lot of connections in tcpview and my colleagues inform me that this is appearing like a performance/d-dos sort of attack.
So in order to get around that issue I'd like the clients to send some sort of heart beat to the server "hey I'm here" on one socket. However I can't see how to do that with zmq.
Any help would be appreciated.
I think the basic design of having 64 threads on the server waiting for external connections is flawed. Why not have a single 'master' thread binding the socket, which the external clients would connect to?
Internal to the server, you could still have 64 worker threads. Work would be distributed to the worker threads by the master thread. The communication between the master and the worker threads would be using zmq messages over the inproc transport.
What I have described are simple fan-in and fan-out patterns which are covered in the zmq guide. If you adopt this, most of the zmq code in the clients and workers would remain unchanged. You would have to write code for the master thread, but the zproxy class of CZMQ may work well for you (if you're using CZMQ).
So my advice is to get the basic design right before trying to add heartbeats. [Actually, I'm not sure how heartbeats would help your current problem.]
Related
I am new to network programming and the usage of Boost Asio library.
I successfully implemented a task for my requirement by modifying the Boost Asio "Blocking TCP Echo Server and Client" which performs transactions of operations between my Client and Server.
Now, I have a requirement where I need to connect multiple Clients with my Server.
I found some relevant links suggesting the usage of async_accept at the Server side.
So, I tried running the Boost Asio example: "Async TCP Echo Server" with the "Blocking TCP Echo client", where the server distinguishes the different clients and addresses them accordingly.
But, my actual requirement should be like, instead of the Server completing the entire process for one Client, it [the server] has to perform same operations for the first client then go to the second client and perform those operations and then again come back to the first client and continue in this order until all operations are complete.
Is there any way or idea which could help me perform this flow using Boost Asio? Also I'm just using the "Blocking TCP Echo Client", which just has a normal connect() and not an async_connect(), now is that a problem?
Also, is it possible to communicate between multiple clients through the server using Boost Asio?
Thanking you very much in advance!
There are 2 models to handling multiple client concurrently on the server.
The one is to spawn a new thread for each client and then each thread handles each client synchronously. The second model is to use asynchronous APIs on a single thread all operating on a single service. When the accept completes, you then create a new worker thread and start the worker off the send and recv required by your protocol. You main thread goes back the accepting new connections.
With async, you prime the pump with an async accept and the call io_service run. When the accept completes, your callback runs. You now prime the pump again with further accepts (for more client) start async send and recv for the newly created client. Since all sends and recvs are non-blocking, the only time your thread sleeps is when it has nothing to do. Otherwise the io_service run method takes care of everything for you.
If you are blocking on sends and recvs, through, you cannot process more than one client concurrently.
It is a general question about patterns used in zmq. I'm trying to achieve the following.
Client can connect to one server
Multiple clients connect to the same server
Server receives connections from multiple clients
Server processes multiple messages in parallel
Think of any webserver, just without all the HTTP stuff around it. The question is the Paranoid Pirate Pattern a good candidate for such client/server? I guess it is a good idea to connect the backed socket to the workers using inproc since the queue and workers will be part of the same process, right? In case there is dozens to hundreds workers used, how should I work with the zmq::context_t? should I initiate it with high number of io_threads or use a zmq::context_t per worker?
EDIT001: Interestingly, zmq example of Paranoid Pattern does not work out of the box.
There are 10 processes in my machine and each should have the capability to communicate with each other.
Now the scenario is all the 10 processes should be in the listening state so that any process can communicate with it at any time. Again when required it should be able to pass a message to any of the processes.
I am trying to code it with C++ and unix tcp/udp sockets. However I don't understand how to structure it. Shall I use UDP or TCP, which would be better? How can a process listen and send data simultaneously.
I need help.
The decision of UDP vs TCP depends on your messages, whether or not they need to be reliably delivered, etc.
For pure TCP, each peer would have a TCP socket on which each process accepts connections from other peers (and each accept would result in a new socket). This new socket is bi directional and can be used for sending / recieving from one peer to another. With this solution, you would need some sort of discovery mechanism.
For UDP, it's much the same except you don't need the accept socket. You still need some form of discovery mechanism.
The discovery mechanism could either be another peer with a well known (via configuration, etc) address, or possibly you could use UDP broadcast for the discovery mechanism.
In terms of zeroMQ, which is a slightly higher level than raw sockets, you would have a single ROUTER socket on which you're listening and recieving data, and one DEALER socket per peer on which you're sending data.
No matter the solution, you would likely need a thread for handling the network connections using poll() or something like that, and as messages are received you need another thread (or thread pool) for handling the messages.
you can run each process as severer & span 9 more thread to connect other processes as client.
This question applies to any language, so the answer is not C++ related.
When given a choice, look for a library to have an easier communication (e.g. apache-thrift).
About TCP/UDP: TCP is typically slower but more reliable, so by default, go for TCP, but there might be reasons for choosing UDP, like streaming, multicast/broadcast,... Reliability might not be an issue when all processes are on the same board, but you might want to communicate with external processes later on.
A threaded process can use the same socket for sending and receiving without locks.
Also, you need some kind of scheme to find out to what port to send to reach a process and with TCP, you need to decide whether to use static connections or connect every time you want to send.
what you want to do seems to be message passing.
before trying to build it yourself, take a look at boost mpi
I am developing TCP server in C++(win32/linux) which cater multiple client.The server is for Video Streaming.Client request video to server and Server get it from Gateway connected with camera.
I am stuck up in the class Design.I found three classes by
Peer
Session and
ConnectionMgr.
So here ConnectionMgr is responsible for managing other Classes.
I wanted your feedback on this.
what info Peer and session need to have;
How Peer and session is related
what information needs to be modeled here.
how to do Session maintainer.
Managing multiple client will require Threads what information thoses may need.
Please give your feedback so that I can upgrade my design.
Looking at the problem space from scratch:
there's some state associated with each client that connects - you seem to split this between Peer and Session and I see no real value in that if they're 1:1 - can omit such trivia from the high-level design stage.
"what info Peer and session need to have": socket descriptor is the only crucial thing, assuming you have only one camera and stream to all clients at the same pace (losing data when socket send() blocks/can't complete due to full buffer), otherwise, a buffer too...
you have a ConnectionMgr, well - yes... it must listen and accept clients on the server socket, possibly launch a new thread per client or monitor the set of current client connections and dispatch events
you'll need to make some decisions about the I/O and concurrency model (e.g. select/poll/non-blocking, async, blocking, single threaded, thread-per-client, thread-pool etc)
this will obviously affect your design: you should decide which - or which choices - you need to support...
To get a feel for this problem space, I suggest you create a very simple client/server program - probably using threads if you're familiar and comfortable with multithreading, otherwise you can hack upon the GCC libc TCP client/server examples for a select() based solution (http://www.gnu.org/s/libc/manual/html_node/Server-Example.html#Server-Example) or try boost::asio or ACE or whatever. To start, just get it working so you can telnet to the server and whatever you type in any connection is echoed out on all the connections. That should give you enough insight to start asking more concrete questions.
As #nabulke and #Jan Hudec stated in their comments, Boost.Asio is very good solution for your problem. Have a look at pretty simple example "Async TCP Echo Server". It uses just 2 classes: server and session. No session_manager. Sessions are managed automatically by smart pointers, very convenient and simple approach.
Using Boost.Asio you can keep the network part simple (and almost optimal by efficiency using asynchronous processing). As a bonus, adding couple of code lines, you receive multithreaded server w/o headache (I would recommend this example: "An HTTP server using a single io_service and a thread pool calling io_service::run().", just ignore HTTP stuff. pay attention to boost::asio::io_service::strand used in connection class)
I am writing a server in linux that is supposed to serve an API.
Initially, I wanted to make it Multi-threaded on a single port, meaning that I'd have multiple threads working on various request received on a single port.
One of my friends told me that it not the way it is supposed to work. He told me that when a request is received, I first have to follow a Handshake procedure, create a thread that is listening to some other port dedicated to the request and then redirect the requested client to the new port.
Theoretically, it's very interesting but I could not find any information on how to implement the handshake and do the redirection. Can someone help?
If I'm not wrong in interpreting your responses, once I create a multithreaded server with a main thread listening to a port, and creates a new thread to handle requests, I'm essentially making it multithreaded on a single port?
Consider the scenario where I get a large number of requests every second. Isn't it true that every request on the port should now wait for the "current" request to complete? If not, how would the communication still be done: Say a browser sends a request, so the thread handling this has to first listen to the port, block it, process it, respond and then unblock it.
By this, eventhough I'm having "multithreads" , all I'm using is one single thread at a time apart from the main thread because the port is being blocked.
What your friend told you is similar to passive FTP - a client tells the server that it needs a connection, the server sends back the port number and the client creates a data connection to that port.
But all you wanted to do is a multithreaded server. All you need is one server socket listening and accepting connections on a given port. As soon as the automatic TCP handshake is finished, you'll get a new socket from the accept function - that socket will be used for communication with the client that has just connected. So now you only have to create a new thread, passing that client socket to the thread function. In your server thread, you will then call accept again in order to accept another connection.
TCP/IP does the handshake, if you can't think of any reason to do a handshake than your application does not demand it.
An example of an application specific handshake could be for user authentication.
What your colleague is suggesting sounds like the way FTP works. This is not a good thing to do -- the internet these days is more or less used for protocols which use a single port, and having a command port is bad. One of the reasons is because statefull firewalls aren't designed for multi-port applications; they have to be extended for each individual application that does things this way.
Look at ASIO's tutorial on async TCP. There one part accept connections on TCP and spawns handlers that each communicate with a single client. That's how TCP-servers usually work (including HTTP/web, the most common tcp protocol.)
You may disregard the asynchronous stuff of ASIO if you're set on creating a thread per connection. It doesn't apply to your question. (Going fully async and have one worker-thread per core is nice, but it might not integrate well with the rest of your environment.)