I am writing code for a Debian 11 Linux platform that needs to control multiple 3.5kW motors using an intelligent motor controller. I started using CAN_RAW sockets since I was familiar with them from past work. However, I discovered that the timing requirements on sending certain tx messages (1200-2000 identical messages spaced at 5ms intervals) required me to use CAN_BCM mode and let the CAN hardware do the work. The motor controller doesn't reply to any of the TX_SETUP messages, it only replies to the individually sent TX_SEND messages.
The transmit side works great, I can send single or multiple messages. I don't know how to receive messages in BCM mode. I only need to receive the reply messages from the TX_SEND messages above. What setup do I need to do (if any) to receive all messages that are sent back to my Linux board? A good example is worth everything.
Thanks!
I tried calling read() and recvfrom() but I need some good documentation or an example.
Related
I am looking to test a scenario, how my software will respond to disconnection of a particular CAN message coming from an external device. This external device will send many CAN messages in the bus, so I cannot control it to stop just a particular message.
Therefore, I am looking for a way in CANoe just to stop one particular CAN message coming into the bus.
Please need your suggestions here.
I tried to provide as much information here, if more is require kindly put in the comment. Thanks.
You would have to split the bus into two and configure CANoe to act as a gateway:
You need a network interface with two CAN channels.
You connect your DUT to one channel (say CAN2) and the remaining bus to the other channel (CAN1).
You then configure both busses in CANoe and add a node to both busses in the simulation setup.
This node should listen to all messages received on CAN1 and output them to CAN2 and vice versa.
If you want certain messages not to reach CAN2, you have to adapt the logic of this node.
Refer to this article in the Vector knowlegde base on how to setup a gateway between two CAN busses and how to control the message flow between those busses.
I implemented a MQTT message broker using mosquitto on my network. I have one web app publishing things to the broker and several servers that subscribed the same topic. So i have a redundancy scenario.
My question is, using mosquitto alone, is there any way to configure it to publish data only on the first subscriber? Otherwise, all of them will do the same thing.
I don't think that is possible.
But you can do this.
Have the first subscriber program respond with an ack on the channel as soon as it gets the message, and have the redundancy program look for the ack for a small time after the initial message.
IF the ack is received the redundancy should not do anything.
So if the first subscriber gets and uses the message, the others wont do anything even if they get the message.
No this is not possible with mosquitto at the moment (without communication between the 2 subscribers as described in the other answer).
For the new release of the MQTT spec (v5)* there is a new mode called "Shared Subscriptions". This allow s multiple clients to subscribe to a single topic and messages will be delivered by round robin to each client. This is more for load balancing rather than master/slave fail over.
*There are some brokers (HiveMQ, IBM MessageSight) that already support some version of Shared Subscriptions at MQTT v3.1.1, but they implement it in slightly different ways (different topic prefixes) so they are not cross compatible.
I want to implement a demo application to listen data via TCP/IP.
Data Transmitter will transmit a series or ASCII char or a series of string all the time. It feeds data into TCP/IP address (eg. 127.0.0.1:22) This could be a GPS transmitter.
I want to implement a demo application for receiving data by clicking the start button and listening to the data via TCP/IP and display it accordingly.
Correct me if I am wrong, I don't think I can use Server/Client server for this purpose. I tried to create a client application with TIdTcpClient, it receives only one time data. I don't think Indy has a TCP listening component.
Thanks in advance.
If you wanna monitor network comunications between some device and some other program on your computer using of TIdTCPServer won't work. Why? Once Indy will read network data it will mark it as processed and delete it from network buffer. So that data probably won't even reach to the other program on your computer. Workaround for this is that you design your application to actually work similar as network bridge. Your application listens to the data on one port and then forwards that data on another port on which the other program is listening. But the main problem is that you have to make this to work both ways.
What you need is somekind of a component which is able to peek at the network data but don't interact with it. This is usually done on driver level.
Now if it is not abolutely necessary to have such functionality in your own software but you are only interested in getting the data I recomend you try Wireshark (http://www.wireshark.org/). Wireshark is a verry powerfull freware software which alows you to monitor all netwrok traffic on basically all protocols without causing any interuptions. In order for this software to work it instals special driver which serves for intercepting the network data.
Maybe you would want to use same driver in your application if this functionality needs to be in your application.
Based on your diagram I think that your implementation could also be based on a message-oriented middleware, using a message broker which receives the GPS transmitter or other data.
The message broker would then store the data internally and forward it to all interested clients which are connected. A typical messaging pattern in this case is a "Topic", which broadcasts the messages similar to a radio station.
So the middleware will ensure that the information will be collected (optionally also persisted to disk) and then guarantees the delivery to the receivers. This can be done even in a way where receivers which have been off-line for a while still receive the GPS messages created while they where not listening ('retroactive consumers').
There are many popular free open source message brokers, and most of them also can be used with Delphi.
I have a server application that receives some special TCP packet from a client and needs to react to it as soon as possible by sending an high-level ACK to the client (the TCP ACK won't suite my needs).
However, this server is really network intensive and sometimes the packet will take too long to be sent (like 200ms in a local network, when a simple server application can send it in less than 1ms).
Is there a way to mark this packet with a high-priority tag or something like that in Delphi? Or maybe with the Win32 API?
Thanks in advance.
EDIT
Thanks for all the answers so far. I'll add some details. My product has the following setup: there are several devices that are built upon vehicles with WIFI conectivity. When they arrive at the garage, those device connect to my server and start to transmit data.
Because of hardware limitations, I implemented a high-level ACK to make the device aware that the last packet arrived successfully (please, don't argue about this - the data may be broken even if I got a correct TCP ACK). However, if I use my server software, that communicates with a remote database, to issue this ACK, I get very long delay (>200ms). If I use an exclusive software to do this task, I get small latencies (<1ms). So, I was imagining if I could just tell Windows to send those special packets first, as it seems to me that this package is getting delayed so the database ones can get delivered.
That's the motivation behind my question.
EDIT 2
As requested: this is legacy software and I'm using the legacy dclsockets140.bpl package and Delphi 2010 (14.0.3593.25826).
IMO it is very difficult to realize this. there are a lot of equipment and software involved. first of all, if you communicate between 2 different OS's you got a latency. second, soft and hard firewalls, antiviruses, everything is filtering/delaying your package.
you can try also to 'hack' the system(this involve some very good knowledge on how the frames/segments are packed/send,flow control,congestion,etc), either by altering it from code, either by using some tools like http://half-open.com/ or others.
In short, passing MSG_OOB flag to the send function marks the data as "urgent". Detailed discussion about the OOB in the context of Windows Sockets implementation specifics is available here.
I am using TIdCmdTCPClient and TIdCmdTCPServer. Suddenly I find that I might like to have bi-directional communication.
What would be best? Should I possibly use some other components? If so, which? Or should I kludge and have the 'client' poll the 'server' to ask if it wishes to communciate anything?
This is a very small system. Two clients and ten servers, with a burst of one tarnscation every 30 to 60 seconds for a few minutes once a day, so overhead for polling is inconsequential.
I'm just woder if there is a 'correct' way.
Update: this really is an incredibly simple system. Very little traffic and all of it simple. All transmissions are an indication of even type an an optional single parameter.
<event type> [ <parameter>] e.g. "HERE_IS_SOME_DATA 42"
This can be sent in both directions, hover here is no "reply" as such. Just fire off a message (and hope that it got there)? Receive an Ack with no data? Non-catching of an exception indicates that message was successfully sent?)
Would it be possible (would it be overkill) to use two TIdCmdTCPServer?
Both TIdCmdTCPClient and TIdCmdTCPServer continuously poll their socket endpoints for inbound data during the lifetime of the connection. You do not have to do anything extra for that. So, as soon as a TIdCmdTCPClient connects to the TIdCmdTCPServer, both components will initially be in a reading state until one of them sends a command to the other.
Now, there is a problem with doing that - as soon as either component sends that first command, the receiving component will interpret it as a command and send back a reply, which the other component will interpret as a command and send back a reply, which will be interpretted as a command and send back a reply, and so on, causing an endless cycle of replies back and forth. For that reason, it is not wise to use TIdCmdTCPClient and TIdCmdTCPServer together. You should either use TIdTCPClient with TIdCmdTCPServer, or use TIdCmdTCPClient with TIdTCPServer. Depending on what exactly your protocol looks like, you may have to forgo using TIdCmdTCPClient and TIdCmdTCPServer altogether and just use TIdTCPClient with TIdTCPServer so you have more control over reading and writing on both ends. It is hard to answer with actual code without first knowing what the communication protocol should look like.
A single TCP socket connection can be used in two directions. The server can send data asynchronously to the client at any time. It is up to the client however to read the socket, for asynchronous processing this is done in a listener thread which reads from the socket and synchronizes incoming data operations with the main worker thread.
An example use case in the Indy components is the Telnet client component (TIdTelnet) which has a receive thread listening for server messages.
But you also asked about the 'correct' way - and then the answer depends on other factors such as network stability, guaranteed delivery and how to handle temporary server outages. In enterprise environments, one central messaging hub is preferred in many use cases, so that all parties connect only to this central server which is only responsible for reliable message delivery, and keeps messages until the recipient is available.
You can download the INDY 10 TCP server demo sample code here.