My customer did not gave me details regarding the nature of it's application. It might
be multithreaded it might be not. His server serves SOAP messages (http requests)
Is there any special trick in order to understand if the peer is single or multi threaded?
I don't want to ask the customer and I don't have access to his server/machine. I want to find it myself.
It's irrelevant. Why do you feel it matters to you?
A more useful question would be:
Can the server accept multiple
simultaneous sessions?
The answer is likely to be 'yes, of course' but it's certainly possible to implement a server that's incapable of supporting multiple sessions.
Just because a server supports multiple sessions, it doesn't mean that it's multi-threaded. And, just because it's multi-threaded doesn't mean it will have good performance. When servers need to support many hundreds or thousands of sessions, multi-threading may be a very poor choice for performance.
Are you asking this question because you want to 'overlap' SOAP messages on the same connection - in other words, have three threads send requests, and then all three wait for a response? That won't work, because (like HTTP) request and response messages are paired together on each connection. You would need to open three connections in order to have three overlapped messages.
Unfortunately, no, at least not without accessing the computer directly. Multiple connections can even be managed by a single thread, however the good news is that this is highly unlikely. Most servers use thread pooling and assign a thread to a connection upon a handshake. Is there a particular reason why you need to know? If you're presumably going to work on this server, you'll know first-hand how it works.
It doesn't matter if the server is multithreaded or not. There are good and efficient ways to implement I/O multiplexing without threads [like select(2) and suchlike], if that's what worries you.
Related
I have to design a server which can able to send a same objects to many clients. clients may send some request to the server if it wants to update something in the database.
Things which are confusing:
My server should start the program (where I perform some operation and produce 'results' , this will be send to the client).
My server should listen to the incoming connection from the client, if any it should accept and start sending the ‘results’.
Server should accept as many clients as possible (Not more than 100).
My ‘result' should be secured. I don’t want some one take my ‘result' and see what my program logics look like.
I thought point 1. is one thread. And point 2. is another thread and it going to create multiple threads within its scope to serve point 3. Point 4 should be taken by my application logic while serialising the 'result' rather the server.
Is it a bad idea? If so where can i improve?
Thanks
Putting every connection on a thread is very bad, and is apparently a common mistake that beginners do. Every thread costs about 1 MB of memory, and this will overkill your program for no good reason. I did ask the very same question before, and I got a very good answer. I used boost ASIO, and the server/client project is finished since months, and it's a running project now beautifully.
If you use C++ and SSL (to secure your connection), no one will see your logic, since your programs are compiled. But you have to write your own communication protocol/serialization in that case.
I tried scouring the net and 90% of times came across pages detailing "HOW" to use Apache to implement the reverse proxy.
I am thinking how exactly the reverse proxy plugins is coded?
I know they parse the request and see to which server it should be routed to.
Do they then create a thread for every connection from the end user and then delegate that thread the responsibility to connect to right server.
Keep on accepting more requests from other clients and creating similar threads.
When thread gets the response from server, reply with that to the client. And close the thread. Or do they have a thread pool?
I am thinking about it from C++ angle. If multithreading is used to increase the proxy's throughput.
A bit dated, but very much worth the read - http://www.kegel.com/c10k.html. After reading that you should have a good idea of why a thread per connection is a really bad idea. If you are really interesting in learning how scalable or high performance servers are implemented, I suggest digging in and reading some source code. I particularly like the source for Apache HTTPD.
I'm writing a tcp server for an online turn-based game. I've already written a prototype using php sockets, but would like to move to C++. I've been looking at the popular network libraries (ASIO, ACE, POCO, LibEvent), but currently unclear which one would best suit my needs:
1) Connections are persistent (on the order of minutes), and the server must be able to handle 100+ simultaneous connections.
2) Connections must be able to maintain state information (user login info). [my php prototype currently requires each client request to contain the login info]
3) Optionally and preferably multi-threaded, but a single process. Prefer not to have 1 thread per connection, but a fixed number of threads working on all open connections.
I'm leaning towards POCO's TCPServer or Reactor frameworks, but not exactly sure if they meet my requirements. I think the Reactor is single threaded, and the TCPServer enforces 1:1 threading/connection. Am I correct?
In either case case, I'm not exactly sure how to do the most important task of associating login info to a specific connection with connections coming and going at random.
Boost.Asio should meet your requirements. The reactor queue can be serviced by multiple threads. Using asynchronous methods will enable your design of a fixed number of threads servicing all connections.
The tutorials and examples are probably the best place to start if you are unfamiliar with the library.
You might also take a look at MUSCLE, a multi-user networking library and server I wrote with this sort of application in mind. It's BSD-licensed, handles hundreds of users, and includes a server-side database mechanism for storing and sharing any information you want the clients to know about each other. The server is single-threaded by default, but I haven't found that to be a problem in practice (and it's possible to extend the server to be multithreaded if that turns out to be necessary).
i'm reading about way to implemnt client-server in the most efficient manner, and i bumped into that link :
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms740550(VS.85).aspx
saying :
"Concurrent connections should not exceed two, except in special purpose applications. Exceeding two concurrent connections results in wasted resources. A good rule is to have up to four short lived connections, or two persistent connections per destination "
i can't quite get what they mean by 2... and what do they mean by persistent?
let's say i have a server who listens to many clients , whom suppose to do some work with the server, how can i keep just 2 connections open ?
what's the best way to implement it anyway ? i read a little about completion port , but couldn't find a good examples of code, or at least a decent explanation.
thanks
Did you read the last sentence:
A good rule is to have up to four
short lived connections, or two
persistent connections per
destination.
Hard to say from the article, but by destination I think they mean client. This isn't a very good article.
A persistent connection is where a client connects to the server and then performs all its actions without ever dropping the connection. Even if the client has periods of time when it does not need the server, it maintains its connection to the server ready for when it might need it again.
A short lived connection would be one where the client connects, performs its action and then disconnects. If it needs more help from the server it would re-connect to the server and perform another single action.
As the server implementing the listening end of the connection, you can set options in the listening TCP/IP socket to limit the number of connections that will be held at the socket level and decide how many of those connections you wish to accept - this would allow you to accept 2 persistent connections or 4 short lived connections as required.
What they mean by, "persistent," is a connection that is opened, and then held open. It's pretty common problem to determine whether it's more expensive to tie up resources with an "always on" connection, or suffer the overhead of opening and closing a connection every time you need it.
It may be worth taking a step back, though.
If you have a server that has to listen for requests from a bunch of clients, you may have a perfect use case for a message-based architecture. If you use tightly-coupled connections like those made with TCP/IP, your clients and servers are going to have to know a lot about each other, and you're going to have to write a lot of low-level connection code.
Under a message-based architecture, your clients could place messages on a queue. The server could then monitor that queue. It could take messages off the queue, perform work, and place the responses back on the queue, where the clients could pick them up.
With such a design, the clients and servers wouldn't have to know anything about each other. As long as they could place properly-formed messages on the queue, and connect to the queue, they could be implemented in totally different languages, and run on different OS's.
Messaging-oriented-middleware like Apache ActiveMQ and Weblogic offer API's you could use from C++ to manage and use queues, and other messaging objects. ActiveMQ is open source, and Weblogic is sold by Oracle (who bought BEA). There are many other great messaging servers out there, so use these as examples, to get you started, if messaging sounds like it's worth exploring.
I think key words are "per destination". Single tcp connection tries to accelerate up to available bandwidth. So if you allow more connections to same destination, they have to share same bandwidth.
This means that each transfer will be slower than it could be and server has to allocate more resources for longer time - data structures for each connection.
Because establishing tcp connection is "time consuming", it makes sense to allow establish second connection in time when you are serving first one, so they are overlapping each other. for short connections setup time could be same as for serving the connection itself (see poor performance example), so more connections are needed for filling all bandwidth effectively.
(sorry I cannot post hyperlinks yet)
here msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms738559%28VS.85%29.aspx you can see, what is poor performance.
here msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc300760.aspx is some example of threaded server what performs reasonably well.
you can limit number of open connections by limiting number of accept() calls. you can limit number of connections from same source just by canceling connection when you find out, that you allready have more then two connections from this location (just count them).
For example SMTP works in similar way. When there are too many connections, it returns 4xx code and closes your connection.
Also see this question:
What is the best epoll/kqueue/select equvalient on Windows?
I am writing a C++ application and would like to request several data files through a HTTP GET request simultaneously, where should I look to get started (needs to be cross-platform).
Run Application
Create a list of URLs { "http://host/file1.txt", "http://host/file2.txt", "http://host/file3.txt"}
Request all the URLs simultaneously and load the contents to variables (don't want disk writes). Each file has about 10kB of data.
What libraries would you recommend I use? libcurl? curlpp? boost asio? would I need to roll-my-own multi threading to request all the files simultaneously? is there a easier way?
Edit: I will need to request about 1000 GET requests simultaneously. Most likely I will do this in batches (100 at a time, and creating more connections as made one are completed).
I would recommend libcurl. I'm not super-familiar with it, but it does have a multi-interface for performing multiple simultaneous HTTP operations.
Depending on what solution you go with, it's possible to do asynchronous I/O without using multithreading. The key is to use the select(2) system call. select() takes a set of file descriptors and tells you if any of them have data available. If they do, you can then proceed to use read(2) or recv(2) on them without worrying about blocking.
Web browsers often maintain a pool of worker threads to do downloads, and assign downloads to them as they become free. IIRC the HTTP RFC has something to say about how many simultaneous connections you should make to the same server at the same time: too many is rude.
If several of the requests are to the same server, and it supports keep-alive (which almost everyone does), then that may be better behaviour than spamming it with multiple simultaneous requests. The general idea is that you use one TCP/IP connection for multiple requests in series, thus saving the handshaking overhead. The practical result, in my experience of implementing Java HTTPConnection classes, is that you introduce a subtle bug to do with not always clearing the state correctly when you re-use the connection for a new request, and spend considerable time staring at logging/sniffer data ;-)
libcurl certainly supports keepalive (enabled by default, I think).