As the title says, I need to monitor a remote folder for new files through a SFTP connection.
I setup a daemon process that opens a connection and if it finds any files then it retrieves their contents and if it doesn't then it sleeps for 5 seconds. This works fine it just hovers around 4% CPU usage. Is there a better way to do this and is it bad to keep a connection like this open indefinitely?
That's probably the best thing you can do, given the circumstances. When watched directories get bigger, your daemon will likely run slower and consume more resources.
A single persistent connection is nothing, both on client and server. But if there are many clients, server may slow down.
If you control the other server, a much better way would be to install a daemon on it. Local process can listen to filesystem notifications and broadcast to connected watchers.
Related
If develop a online real time game with websocket, multiplayers running on the different containers, how to sync data when add or reduce containers if they are playing?
Does kubernetes has any good feature on this case?
ThatBrianDude already gave an awesome answer, and mine will not be that good. But I think your last comment gave us more hints about the architecture you have in mind. I hope my humble answer will shed a light on more ideas to your game. Here are some suggestions:
First, avoid keeping any state in the websocket apps.
The basic idea with containers is that they should be stateless.
ThatBrianDude
So, why not use caches and a messaging layer to help you with that. Imagine the following examples:
Situation 1: if the client sends an action to the websocket server, the server should put it in a queue/topic (some other service will process it later on).
Situation 2: The server might also listen to a(some) topic(s) for some types of messages, and send them back to the clients that need that information.
Situation 3: when the client asks for information or if the websocket server needs some information to send to the client, the server must read it from a cache, as reading from DB might be slow for a multiplayer game.
Situation 4: eventually a container is killed. The clients connected to that server will receive a connection error, and should reconnect. That means another handshake, and the player might feel it, depending on what the game was doing, so killing a container should not happen that often. But that would be just it, no information is lost.
This way, the websocket server containers are totally stateless, and the messaging topics and caches will help you to: provide all the information needed to containers, and; keep websockets, persistance and processing isolated and scalable.
Summing up, the information would flow like this:
clients are showering the websocket server containers with actions
websocket servers just send them to the messaging layer
processing containers (which can be scalled too!) receive those messages, process them, save to the database and/or to a cache and eventually send more messages to other topics
(optional) websocket servers receive those messages and send them to the clients.
Or like this:
clients ask for information or websocket servers periodically need to send the world state to clients
websocket servers look up the information in the cache
and send it to the clients.
Or even like this:
Some processing servers are independent of messages, they just read the game/world state (from the cache?) periodically
they process the physics and mechanics of the game
and save the result back in the cache, which will be sent to the clients by the websocket servers periodically, or send it in a topic so the websocket server can listen to it and send it to the clients.
Lastly, don't forget the suggestion to have one machine responsible for one game/world. It would be nice if each processing server (or each thread of a server) works with one game/world. That would make it easier to persist things without the need to sync stuff.
The basic idea with containers is that they should be stateless.
This means that any persistant data your game might have (highscores etc.) must be saved to a persistant DB whereas other temporary data like current ingame score or nickname etc. can stay inside the memory of the container and be gone once the container dies.
how to sync data when add or reduce containers if they are playing?
This sounds like you want to use multiple containers computing one game world?
Thats a whole other beast on its own but you might want to take a look at SpatialOS which pretty much allows for massive multiplayer worlds and is designed for games that require more than one machine per world.
If thats not what you are looking for I would recommend you to keep one machine responsible for one game/world as you will avoid high complexity when you try to sync stuff later on.
I am presently working on a client-server solution to transfer files to another machine via a socket network connection. Since I intend to do some evaluation on the receiving end as well I am assuming that I will need to have some kind of client or server programme running there, too.
I am fairly new to the whole client-server thing and therefore have the following elementary question:
My present understanding is that client and server will be two independent programmes running on two different machines. How would one typically ensure that the communication partner (i.e., the server when sending from a client and the client when sending from a server) is actually up and running on the remote machine that I want to transfer a file to?
So far, I have been looking into the following options:
In the sending programme include an ssh access to the remote
machine and start an instance of the receiving programme on the
remote machine.
Have the receiving programme run as a demon process on the remote
machine. This would mean that the receiving programme should always
be running on the remote machine. However, how would I know whether
the process has crashed or has been shut down for some reason and
how would one recover from that without option 1) above?
So, my main question is: Are there any additional options that might be worth considering?
Thanks for your view on this!
Depending on how your client server messages are setup, a ping (I don't mean the ICMP ping, but the basic idea) message, where the server can respond with "I am alive" would help. This way at least you know the server end is running.
It is not uncommon in production environments using these that monitoring systems are put in place. Other options worth considering - xinet.d scripts - stuff that gets started on incoming connections.
There probably new ways to achieve the automatic start/restart or start on connection of this with systemd/systemctl but I am not familiar enough with them to give you the specifics.
A somewhat crude, but effective means may be a cron job that periodically runs a script to enforce keeping the service up.
I am looking to write a program that will connect to many computers from a single computer. Sort of like "Command Center" where you can monitor all the remote system remotely on a single PC.
My plan is to have multiple Client Sockets on a form. They will connect to individual PCs remotely. So, they can request information from them to display on the Window. Remote PCs will be hosts. Is this possible?
Direct answer to your question: Yes, you can do that.
Long answer: Yes, you can do that but are you sure your design is correct? Are you sure you want to create parallel connections, one to each client? Probably you don't! If yes, then you probably want to run them in separate threads.
If you want to send some commands from time to time (and you are not doing some kind of constant video monitoring) why don't you just use one connection and 'switch' between clients?
I can't tell you more about the design because from your question is not clear about what you want to build (what exactly you are 'monitoring').
VERY IMPORTANT!
Two important notices to take into account before designing your app (both relevants only if the remote computers are not in the LAN (you connect to them via Internet)):
If the remote computers are running as servers, you will have lots of problems to explain your customers (if they are connected (and they probably are) to Internet via a router) how to setup the router and the software firewall. For example, if a remote computer is listening for commands from you, on port 1234 (for example) the firewall in the router will block BY DEFAULT any connection attempt from a 'foreign' computer (from you) to that port.
If your remote computers are running as clients, how they will know master's IP (your IP). Do you have a static IP?
What you actually need is one ServerSocket on the module running on your machine.
To which all your remote PC's will connect through their individual ClientSocket.
You can make your design other way round by putting ClientSocket on the module running on your machine and ServerSocket on the module running on remote machine.
But you will end up creating one ClientSocket to each ServerSocket, what if you have the number of remote servers increase.
Now if you still want to have multiple ClientSockets on your machine then as Altar said you could need a multi threaded application where each thread is responsible for one ClientSocket.
I would recommend Internet Direct (Indy) as they work well in threads, and you can specify a connect time-out per connection, so that your monitoring app will be able to get a 'negative' test result faster than with the default OS connect time-out.
Instead of placing them on the form, I would wrap each client in a class which runs an internal monitoring thread. More work initially but easier to keep independent from each other.
so I'm making an iOS app, but this is more of a general networking question.
So what I have is one phone that acts as the server and then a bunch of phones connect to the phone as the client. Basically it's a game/music sharer.
It's kind of hard to really get into the semantics of it, but that isn't important.
What is important is that the server and client are repeatedly sending each other commands and positions rapidly over a TCP connection, and sometimes the client wants to send the server a music file (4MB usually) to play as the music.
The problem I initially encountered was that when sending the large file, it would hang the sending of commands from the client to the server.
My naive solution was to create another socket to connect to the server to send the file to the server, the server would check the IP of the new socket, and if it has the IP of an existing connection then it would just tie it to that connection, receive the file, and then disconnect the socket.
But the problem with this is that it takes a 1-2 second delay for the socket to connect, and I'm aware that there are man-in-the-middle attacks that can occur.
Is there a more elegant solution to this problem?
I would not call your solution naive, this is largely how FTP works, separating data and control paths is a good design pattern in my view.
I wouldn't worry about the man in the middle thing. If you wanted, you could add a command to the client that it responds to over the data connection with a secret the server supplies, this would let you associate the connections without using the ip addressing.
If the delay is a problem then why not establish both connections at the start, the overhead of a few tcp connections on an operating system is not usually significant.
You could also use the two connections for both commands and data, alternating between them. Since both the server and client know when a connection is busy they can choose to use the idle one. The advantage of this is that it will keep both connections busy to ensure they are both known to be working.
You probably should also use a different thread for each socket but I suspect you are doing this since it won't work too well without it.
My Server-App uses a TIdTCPServer, several Client apps use TIdTCPClients to connect to the server (all computers are in the same LAN).
Some of the clients only need to contact the server every couple of minutes, others once every second and one will do this about 20 times a second.
If I keep the connection between a Client and the Server open, I'll save the re-connect, but have to check if the connection is lost.
If I close the connection after each transfer, it has to re-connect every time, but there's no need to check if the connection is still there.
What is the best way to do this?
At which frequency of data transfers should I keep the connection open in general?
What are other advantages / disadvantages for both scenarios?
I would suggest a mix of the two. When a new connection is opened, start an idle timer for it. Whenever data is exchanged, reset the timer. If the timer elapses, close the connection (or send a command to the client asking if it wants the connection to remain open). If the connection has been closed when data needs to be sent, open a new connection and repeat. This way, less-often-used connections can be closed periodically, while more-often-used connections can stay open.
Two Cents from experiment...
My first TCP/IP client/server application was using a new connection and a new thread for each request... years ago...
Then I discovered (using ProcessExplorer) that it consummed some network resources because all closed connection are indeed not destroyed, but remain in a particular state for some time. A lot of threads were created...
I even had some connection problems with a lot of concurent requests: I didn't have enough ports on my server!
So I rewrote it, following the HTTP/1.1 scheme, and the KeepAlive feature. It's much more efficient, use a small number of threads, and ProcessExplorer likes my new server. And I never run out of port again. :)
If the client has to be shutdown, I'll use a ThreadPool to, at least, don't create a thread per client...
In short: if you can, keep your client connections alive for some minutes.
While it may be fine to connect and disconnect for an application that is active once every few minutes, the application that is communicating several times a second will see a performance boost by leaving the connection open.
Additionally, your code will be much simple if you aren't trying to constantly open, close, or diagnose an open connection. With the proper open and close logic, and SEH around your read and writes, there's no reason to test if the socket is still connected before using, just use it. It will tell you when there is a problem.
I'd lean towards keeping a single connection open in most enterprise applications. It generally will lead to cleaner code, that is easier to maintain.
/twocents
I guess it all depends on your goal and the amount of requests made on the server in a given time not to mention the available bandwidth and the hardware on the server.
You need to think for the future as well, is there any chance that in the future you will need connections to be left open? if so, then you've answered your own question.
I've implemented a chat system for a project in which ~50 people(the number is growing with each 2 months) are always connected and besides chatting it also includes data transfer, database manipulation using certain commands, etc. My implementation is keeping the connection to the server open from the application startup until the application is closed, no issues so far, however if a connection is lost for some reason it is automatically reestablished and everything continues flawlessly.
Overall I suggest you try both(keeping the connection open and closing it after it's being used) and see which fits your needs best.
Unless you are scaling to many hundreds of concurrent connections I would definitely keep it open - this is by far the better of the two options. Once you scale past hundreds into thousands of concurrent connections you may have to drop and reconnect. I have architected my entire framework around this (http://www.csinnovations.com/framework_overview.htm) since it allows me to "push" data to the client from the server whenever required. You need to write a fair bit of code to ensure that the connection is up and working (network drop-outs, timed pings, etc), but if you do this in your "framework" then your application code can be written in such a way that you can assume that the connection is always "up".
The problem is the limit of threads per application, around 1400 threads. So max 1300 clients connected at the same time +-.
When closing connections as a client the port you used will be unavailable for a while. So at high volume you’re using loads of different ports. For anything repetitive i’d keep it open.