Multiuser chat server c++ - c++

Question

I am building a Chat Server (which allows private messages between users) in c++ ... just as a challenge for me, and I've hit a dead point... where I don't know what may be better.
By the way: I am barely new to C++; that's why I want a challenge... so if there are other optimal ways, multithreading, etc... let me know please.
Option A
I have a c++ application running, that has an array of sockets, reads all the input (looping through all the sockets) in every loop (1second loop I guess) and stores it to DB (a log is required), and after that, loops again over all the sockets sending what's needed in every socket.
Pros: One single process, contained. Easy to develop.
Cons: I see it hardly scalable, and a single focus of failure ... I mean, what about performance with 20k sockets?
Option B
I have a c++ application listening to connections.
When a connection is received, it forks a subprocess that handles that socket... reading and saving to a DB all the input of the user. And checking all the required output from DB on every loop to write to the socket.
Pros: If the daemon is small enough, having a process per socket is likely more scalable. And at the same time if a process fails, all the others are kept online.
Cons: Harder to develop. May be it consumes too much resources to maintain a process for each connection.
What option do you think is the best? Any other idea or suggestion is welcome :)

Answer 1

As mentioned in the comments, there is an additional alternative which is to use select() or poll() (or, if you don't mind making your application platform-specific, something like epoll()). Personally I would suggest poll() because I find it more convenient, but I think only select() is available on at least some versions of Windows - I don't know whether running on Windows is important to you.
The basic approach here is that you first add all your sockets (including a listen socket, if you're listening for connections) to a structure and then call select() or poll() as appropriate. This call will block your application until at least one of the socket has some data to read, and then you get woken up and you go through the socket(s) that are ready for reading, process the data and then jump back into blocking again. You generally do this in a loop, something like:
while (running) {
int rc = poll(...);
// Handle active file descriptors here.
}
This is a great way to write an application which is primarily IO-bound - i.e. it spends much more time handling network (or disk) traffic than it does actually processing the data with the CPU.
As also mentioned in the comments, another approach is to fork a thread per connection. This is quite effective, and you can use simple blocking IO in each thread to read and write to that connection. Personally I would advise against this approach for several reasons, most of which are largely personal preference.
Firstly, it's fiddly to handle connections where you need to write large amounts of data at a time. A socket can't guarantee to write all pending data at once (i.e. the amount that it sent may not be the full amount you requested). In this case you have to buffer up the pending data locally and wait until there's room in the socket to send it. This means at any given time, you might be waiting for two conditions - either the socket is ready to send, or the socket is ready to read. You could, of course, avoid reading from the socket until all the pending data is sent, but this introduces latency into handling the data. Or, you could use select() or poll() on just that connection - but if so, why bother using threads at all, just handle all the connections that way. You could also use two threads per connection, one for reading and one for writing, which is probably the best approach if you're not confident whether you can always send all messages in a single call, although this doubles the number of threads you need which could make your code more complicated and slightly increase resource usage.
Secondly, if you plan to handle many connections, or a high connection turnover, threads are somewhat more of a load on the system than using select() or friends. This isn't a particularly big deal in most cases, but it's a factor for larger applications. This probably isn't a practical issue unless you were writing something like a webserver that was handling hundreds of requests a second, but I thought it was relevant to mention for reference. If you're writing something of this scale you'd likely end up using a hybrid approach anyway, where you multiplexed some combination of processes, threads and non-blocking IO on top of each other.
Thirdly, some programmers find threads complicated to deal with. You need to be very careful to make all your shared data structures thread-safe, either with exclusive locking (mutexes) or using someone else's library code which does this for you. There are a lot of examples and libraries out there to help you with this, but I'm just pointing out that care is needed - whether multithreaded coding suits you is a matter of taste. It's relatively easy to forget to lock something and have your code work fine in testing because the threads don't happen to contend that data structure, and then find hard-to-diagnose issues when this happens under higher load in the real world. With care and discipline, it's not too hard to write robust multithreaded code and I have no objection to it (though opinions vary), but you should be aware of the care required. To some extent this applies to writing any software, of course, it's just a matter of degree.
Those issues aside, threads are quite a reasonable approach for many applications and some people seem to find them easier to deal with than non-blocking IO with select().
As to your approaches, A will work but is wasteful of CPU because you have to wake up every second regardless of whether there's actual useful work to do. Also, you introduce up to a second's delay in handling messages, which could be irritating for a chat server. In general I would suggest that something like select() is a much better approach than this.
Option B could work although when you want to send messages between connections you're going to have to use something like pipes to communicate between processes and that's a bit of a pain. You'll end up having to wait on both your incoming pipe (for data to send) as well as the socket (for data to receive) and thus you end up effectively with the same problem, having to wait on two filehandles with something like select() or threads. Really, as others have said, threads are the right way to process each connection separately. Separate processes are also a little more expensive of resources than threads (although on platforms such as Linux the copy-on-write approach to fork() means it's not actually too bad).
For small applications with only, say, tens of connections there's not an awful lot technically to choose between threads and processes, it largely depends on which style appeals to you more. I would personally use non-blocking IO (some people call this asynchronous IO, but that's not how I would use the term) and I've written quite a lot of code that does that as well as lots of multithreaded code, but it's still only my personal opinion really.
Finally, if you want to write portable non-blocking IO loops I strongly suggest investigating libev (or possbily libevent but personally I find the former easier to use and more performant). These libraries use different primitives such as select() and poll() on different platforms so your code can remain the same, and they also tend to offer slightly more convenient interfaces.
If you have any more questions on any of that, feel free to ask.