We intend to design a system with three "tiers".
HQ, with a single server
lots of "nodes" on a regional basis
users, with iPads.
HQ communicates 2-way with the nodes which communciate 2-way with the users. Users never communicate with HQ nor vice-versa.
The powers that be decree a Windows app from HQ (using Delphi) and a native desktop app for the users' iPads. They have no opinion on the nodes.
If there are compelling technical arguments, I might be able to beat them down from "decree" to "prefer" on the Windows program (and, for isntance, make it browser based). The nodes have no GUI, they just sit there playing middle-man.
What's the best way for these things to communicate (SOAP/HTTP/AJAX/jQuery/home-brewed-protocol-on-top-of-TCP/something-else?) Is it best to use the same protocol end to end, or different protocols for hq<-->node and node<-->iPad?
Both ends of each of those two interfaces might wish to initiate a transaction (which I can easily do if I roll my own protocol), so should I use push/pull/long-poll or what?
I hope that this description makes sense. Please ask questions if it does not. Thanks.
Update:
File size is typcially below 1MB with nothing likely to be above 10MB or even 5MB. No second file will be sent before a first file is acknowledged.
Files flow "downhill" from HQ to node to iPad. Files will never flow "uphill", but there will be some small packets of data (in addition to acks) which are initiated by user action on the iPad. These will go to the local node and then to the HQ. We are probably talking <128 bytes.
I suppose there will also be general control & maintenance traffic at a low rate, in all directions.
For push / pull (publish / subscribe or peer to peer communication), cross-platform message brokers could be used. I am not sure if there are (iOS) client libraries for Microsoft Message Queue (MSMQ), but I would also evaluate open source solutions like HornetQ, Apache ActiveMQ, Apollo, OpenMQ, Apache QPid or RabbitMQ.
All these solutions provide a reliable foundation for distributed messaging, like failover, clustering, persistence, with high performance and many clients attached. On this infrastructure message with any content type (JSON, binary, plain text) can be exchanged, and on top messages can contain routing and priority information. They also support transacted messaging.
There are Delphi and Free Pascal client libraries available for many enterprise quality open source messaging products. (I am am the author of some of them, supporting ActiveMQ, Apollo, HornetQ, OpenMQ and RabbitMQ)
Check out MessagePack: http://msgpack.org/
Also, here's more RPC discussion on SO:
RPC frameworks available?
MessagePack: fast cross-platform serializer and RPC - please share experience
ICE might be of interest to you: http://zeroc.com/index.html
They have an iOS layer: http://zeroc.com/icetouch/index.html
IMHO there are too little requisites to decide what technology to use. What data are exchanged, how often, what size? Are there request/response time constraints? etc. etc. Never start selecting a technology before you understand your needs deeply.
Related
Just asking one silly question, hope someone can answer this.
I'm bit confused regarding MQTT broker. Basically, the confusion is, there are so many things being used for data storing, transfer and processing (like Flume, HDInsight, Spark etc). So, when and why I need to use one MQTT broker?
If I would like to use Windows 10 IoT application with HiveMQ, from where can I get the details? how to use it? How I get benefit out of this MQTT broker? Can I not send data from my IoT application directly using Azure or HDFS? So, how MQTT broker fits into it or helping me to achieve something?
I'm new to all these and tried to find some tutorials, however, I'm not getting anything proper. Please explain it in more details or give some tutorials for this?
MQTT is a client-server protocol for pub-sub based transport that has a comparatively small overhead, and thus applicable to mobile and IoT applications (unlike Flume, etc.). The MQTT broker is basically a server that handles messaging to/from MQTT clients and among them. The functionality pretty much stops at the transport layer, even though various MQTT add-ons exist.
If you are looking to implement a solution that would reliably transfer data from your IoT devices to the back-end system for processing, I would suggest you take a look into Kaa open-source IoT platform. It goes much further than MQTT by providing not only the transport layer, suitable for low-power IoT devices, but also a solid chunk of the application level logic (including the object bindings for your application-level data structures, temporary data persistence, etc.).
Here is a link to a webinar that explains how to build a scalable IoT analytics system with Kaa and Spark in less than an hour.
This is an architectural choice. IoT applications are possible without MQTT but there are some advantages when using MQTT. If you are completely new to MQTT, take a look at this in-depth MQTT series: http://forkbomb-blog.de/2015/all-you-need-to-know-about-mqtt
Basically the main architectural advantage is publish / subscribe designed for low-latency, high throughput (mobile) communication with minimal protocol overhead (which is important if bandwidth is at a premium). You can completely decouple consumers and producers.
HDFS is the (distributed) Hadoop file system and is the foundation for Map / Reduce processing. It is not comparable to a MQTT broker. The MQTT broker could write to the HDFS, though (in case of HiveMQ with a custom plugin).
Basically MQTT is a protocol while the products you are mentioning are, well, products which solve completely different problems:
Flume is basically used for log aggregation at scale. You won't use MQTT for that, at least there is not too much advantage because this is typically done in backend applications.
Spark and Hadoop shine at Big Data crunching. They are a framework and not a ready to use solution. They are not really comparable to MQTT. Often MQTT brokers like HiveMQ are used in conjunction with these, Spark / Hadoop for data processing and HiveMQ for communication.
I hope this helps you getting started. Best would be to read about typical use cases of all these technologies, this is a bit too broad for a single SO answer.
MQTT is a data transport, so the usual thing I have to compare it with is HTTP. HTTP has two important characteristics, a) It goes from one point to another, b) It is request/response, so only one end can start a data transfer. MQTT connects many end points to many end points, and either end can start a data transfer. So, if you have just one device and only one service or person that will ever access it, and only by polling, then HTTP is great. MQTT means many devices can post data to many services or people, AND the other way around. Your question assumes that your data is always going to land up in some sort of data store, but many interactions are about events and responding to them immediately, like ringing a doorbell, or lowering the landing gear. In these cases you will often want to both record the data, and have an immediate action occur, like your phone making a doorbell noise.
Finally, you send data to MQTT semantically, rather than by IP address.
This means that your services subscribes to /mikeshouse/doorbell rather than polling 192.168.22.4, which is a huge gain once you have a number of devices.
I have already developed a Clinic management application for Allergy Control Clinics which stores patients' medical files and test results in a database and generates reports for analysis.
there's a section for storing spirometry results in the database. currently i get results
from an Excel file which is exported by WinspiroPro (the application that comes with spirolab devices) and store them in the database.
few days ago i came across the word "HL7" which seems to be a Standard protocol for communicating with these medical devices, so i can directly get the results from the device using Delphi.
also in spirolab device user manual it is mentioned that the device is compatible with this system.
now my question is, how can I implement this system (HL7) in delphi?
Thanks
As is usual with these kind of inter-professional standards, you need to pay to get them, at least on http://www.hl7.org in this case.
If I search around on the net, there may be existing tools that you can use, or have a look how they work internally:
http://code.ohloh.net/search?s=HL7
https://code.google.com/hosting/search?q=HL7&sa=Search
http://sourceforge.net/directory/?q=HL7
HL7 is not bound to a specific transport layer. It is a protocol on the application level, the seventh layer of the ISO 7-layer-model, hence Level 7. It describes messages and the events, when this messages should be send.
It just gives some recommendations how to do message transfer on the subjacent layers, e.g. MLLP with tcp socket communication. But in principle you are free to use any transport layers you want, may it be direct socket communication, file transfer or what ever.
Although most systems now can use tcp, it is also possible to use HL7 with different underlying transport protocols as RS232. If I remember right, there was also an example about message transfer / coupling with RS232 in the implementation guides of the documentation. And yes, the documentation and protocol standard documetation is free after registering.
Did you ask your provider for the WinspiroPRO version with HL7 ability? Maybe it supports already socket communication with tcp.
Otherwise you either need access to the sourcecode of ldTCPCClient and replace the tcp part with an RS232 part or you have to use a software just for parsing/building (unmarshalling/marshalling) of HL7 messages together with a software, that handles the transportation level.
By the way, just from the name, I guess that ldTCPclient is not apt for your need, as you will probably need a host and not a client component.
I'm familiar with SOAP and Webservices for peer-to-peer or client/server messaging on other platforms. What is the Apple equivalent for messaging?
I'm trying to put together an application server that will manage a collaborative work environment. It will have an average of 200 and maximum of 1000 mobile clients on a LAN. For example, one Mac and 200 iPhones. I'm planning to use Apple's Enteprise approach to distribute our private (commercial) app to each of our iPhones clients.
The server can push configuration settings to each client. The server will also push small sets of data to the clients. The clients will perform tasks on this data locally, and eventually report back status to the server. The clients can request more data sets from the server. These exchanges can be managed asynchronously.
There is also be a need to have synchronous exchanges for critical processes. This is rare, but it is a requirement.
The data that needs to be exchanged is reasonably small. These client/server processes are time dependent, so performance is critical requirement.
The network won't be shared, but needs to be tightly controlled (and fast). E.g. it can be Bonjour if there is a compelling reason for that.
I'm looking for a recommendation on which components of the Mac/iOS SDKs to leverage. Please leave 3rd party software out of this discussion. I must know what Apple already offers and what gaps exist before considering outside software. Thanks.
If you are only going to be using Mac and iOS products then Bonjour is really your best bet. There are a ton of native ways to transmit data in either byte or object forms.
There were a couple great videos from WWDC 2012 showing what the new Xcode can do to create client and server applications. It is under NDA, but you may want to take a look there: https://developer.apple.com/videos/wwdc/2012/.
Also you said you did not want third party, any particular reason? Would you use an open source layer on top of Bonjour?
We're looking to implement ActiveMQ to handle messaging between two of our servers, over a geographically diverse environment (Australia to the UK and back, via the internet).
I've been looking for some vague indicators of performance round the net but so far have had no luck.
My question: compared to a DIY TCP/SSL implementation of basic messaging, how would ActiveMQ perform? Similar systems of our own can send and receive messages across Australia in 100-150ms, over a SSL layer with an already established connection.
Also, does ActiveMQ persist its TLS/SSL connections, thus saving a substantial amount of time that would already be used in connection creation/teardown?
What I am hoping is that it will at least perform better than HTTPS, at a per-request level.
I am aware that performance can vary remarkably, depending on hardware, networks, code and so on. I'm just after something to start with.
I know the above is a little fuzzy - if you need any clarification please let me know and I will only be too happy to oblige.
Thank you.
What Tim means is that this is not an apples to apples comparison. If you are solely concerned with the performance of a single point to point connection to transfer data, a direct link will give you a good result (although DIY is still a dubious design decision). If you are building a system that requires the transfer of data and you have more complex functional requirements, then a broker-based messaging platform like ActiveMQ will come into play.
You should consider broker-based messaging if you want:
a post-office style system where a producer sends a message, and knows that it will be consumed at some point, even if there is no consumer there at that time
to not care where the consumer of a message is, or how many of them there are
a guarantee that a message will be consumed, even if the consumer that first handle it dies mid-way through the process (transactions, redelivery)
many consumers, with a guarantee that a message will only be consumed once - queues
many consumers that will each react to a single message - topics
These patterns are pretty standard, and apply to all off the shelf messaging products. As a general rule, DIY in this domain is a bad idea, as messaging is complex (see http://www.ohloh.net/p/activemq/estimated_cost for an estimate of how long it would take you do do same); and has many existing implementations of various flavours (some without a broker) that are all well used, commercially supported and don't require you to maintain them. I would think very hard before going down to the TCP level for any sort of data transfer as there is so much prior art.
I need to use one logical PGM based multicast address in application while enable such application "seamlessly" running across several different geo-locations (i.e. think US/Europe/Australia).
Application is quite throughput (several million biz. messages a day) and latency demanding whith a lot of small but very frequently send messages. Classical Atom pub will not work here due some external limits of latencies.
I have come up with several options to connect those datacenters but can’t find the best one.
Options which I have considered are:
1) Forward multicast messages via VPN’s (can VPN handle such big load).
2) Translate all multicast messages to “wrapper messages” and forward them via AMQP.
3) Write specialized in-house gate which tunnels multicast messages via TCP to other two locations.
4) Any other solution
I would prefer option 1 as it does not need additional code writes from devs. but I’m afraid it will not be reliable connection.
Are there any rules to apply for such connectivity?
What the best network configuration with regard to the geographical configuration is for above constrains.
Just wanted to say hello :)
As for the topic, we have not much experience with multicasting over WAN, however, my feeling is that PGM + WAN + high volume of data would lead to retransmission storms. VPN won't make this problem disappear as all the Australian receivers would, when confronted with missing packets, send NACKS to Europe etc.
PGM specification does allow for tree structure of nodes for message delivery, so in theory you could place a single node on the receiving side that would in its turn re-multicast the data locally. However, I am not sure whether this kind of functionality is available with MS implementation of PGM. Optionally, you can place a Cisco router with PGM support on the receiving side that would handle this for you.
In any case, my preference would be to convert the data to TCP stream, pass it over the WAN and then convert it back to PGM on the other side. Some code has to be written, but no nasty surprises are to be expected.
Martin S.
at CohesiveFT we ran into a very similar problem when we designed our "VPN-Cubed" product for connecting multiple clouds up to servers behind our own firewall, in one VPN. We wanted to be able to run apps that talked to each other using multicast, but for example Amazon EC2 does not support multicast for reasons that should be fairly obvious if you consider the potential for network storms across a whole data center. We also wanted to route traffic across a wide area federation of nodes using the internet.
Without going into too much detail, the solution involved combining tunneling with standard routing protocols like BGP, and open technologies for VPNs. We used RabbitMQ AMQP to deliver messages in a pubsub style without needing physical multicast. This means you can fake multicast over wide area subnets, even across domains and firewalls, provided you are in the VPN-Cubed safe harbour. It works because it is a 'network overlay' as described in technical note here: http://blog.elasticserver.com/2008/12/vpn-cubed-technical-overview.html
I don't intend to actually offer you a specific solution, but I do hope this answer gives you confidence to try some of these approaches.
Cheers, alexis