Is it allowed to have one process reading from and another process writing to a socket in Erlang?
I have tried it and it appears to work but I would like to know if it's foolproof.
As I understand it from the source code, a (gen_tcp, at least) socket send/recv boils down to an erlang:port_command for the send and an erlang:port_control for the recv on the socket port (see prim_inet.erl).
For port_command: "if the port is busy, the calling process will be suspended until the port is not busy anymore." The port_control is also a synchronous operation.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it would appear to be completely safe to use multiple processes to read and write to a socket.
I am pretty sure I remember doing this without any problems.
Anyone of them can write, but it wouldn't make sense if all your processes could receive. It would overflow the mailboxes of all the ones not anticipating messages. You need to define only one Pid to receive packets, by default it's whatever Pid the socket was created in. You can set any Pid to control the socket by setting the controlling process.
Related
I have a server application which runs on a Linux machine. I can connect this application from Windows/Linux machines and can send/recieve data. After a few hours, something occurs and I get following error on the client side.
On Windows: An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host
On Linux: Connection timed out
I have made a search on the web and found some posts which suggest to increase/decrease OS's keep alive time. However, it didin't work for me.
Can I found a soultion to this problem or should I simply try to reconnect to the server when the connection is forcibly closed?
EDIT: I have tracked the situation. I sent a data to the remote node and sent another data after waiting 5 hours. Sending side sent the first data, but whet the sender sent the second data it didn't response. TCP/IP stack of the sender repeated this 5 times by incrementing the times between retries. Finally, sender reset the connection. I can't be sure why this is happening (Maybe because of a firewall or NAT - see Section 2.4) but I applied two different approach to solve this problem:
Use TCP/IP keep alive using setsockopt (Section 4.2)
Make an application level keep alive. This is more reliable since the first approach is OS related.
It depends on what your application is supposed to do. A little more information and perhaps the code you use for listening and handling connections could be of help.
Regardless, technically a longer keep alive time, should prevent the OS from cutting you off. So perhaps it is something else causing the trouble.
Such a thing could be router malfunction or traffic causing your keep-alive packet to get lost.
If you aren't already testing it on a LAN (without heavy trafic) I suggest doing so.
It might also be due to how your socket is handled (which I can't determine from your question)
This article might help.
Non blocking socket with timeout
I'm not used to how connections are handled on Linux, but I expect the OS won't cut off a connection unnecessary.
You can re-establish connection as a recovery, but you need to take into account that not all disconnects are gentle, and therefore you could end up making recovery on a connection you actually wish to be closed.
Since it is TCP, it will do its best to make a gentle disconnect, but you can send a custom message telling the server or client not to re-establish the connection right before disconnecting. That way you be absolutely sure, despite that it should be unnecessary to do so.
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.
I have a Windows Service that works with an advantage database and occasionally makes some http calls. On rare occasions these calls can be very long. To the tune that my database connection times out. I'm not using a Data Module or anything. Just creating the connection manually.
My primary question is what usually prevents the connection from timing out if I just haven't used it in a while? Do the TAdsComponents send a keep alive message that gets called in the background somehow? Is that dependent on the vcl so I don't have that in my service? Somehow I feel like creating a thread to make my http call, and in the main thread checking for it to finish every few seconds would prevent the connection from dying. Is that ever true?
Yes, there is a keepalive mechanism as you expect. The client (for all communication types, TCP, UDP, Shared memory) sends a "ping" to the server every so often to let the server know that connection is still alive. The frequency of that keepalive ping is based on the server configuration parameter CLIENT_TIMEOUT. With the default settings, I believe the keepalive ping is sent every 30 seconds.
The keepalive logic runs in a separate thread that is started by the code that handles the communication. In other words, it does not depend on any of the VCL components; if you have a connection to the server, then that thread should be running.
One way to check if your connections are timing out is to look in the Advantage error log. There should be 7020 errors corresponding to timed out connections.
Some things that come to mind that might result in timed out connections include:
The client process being suspended for some reason so that the keepalive thread could not run. This seems unlikely.
The keepalive thread was killed for some reason. This also seems unlikely; you would have to go out of your way to make this happen.
A firewall may close the connection if there is no activity for a time. I would think, though, that a 30 second interval would be sufficient to prevent that.
A firewall may disallow the UDP keepalive packets. Firewalls, by nature, are "suspicious" of UDP packets. You might make sure you are using TCP/IP.
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.
We have an application server developed with Delphi 2010 and Indy 10. This server receives more than 50 requests per second and it works well. But in some cases, it seems to me that Indy is very obscure. Their components are good, but sometimes I found myself digging into the source code only to understand a simple thing. Indy lacks on good documentation and good support.
The last thing that i came across was a big problem for me: I must detect when a client disconnects non gracefully (When the the client crashes or shutdown, for instance. Not telling the server that it will disconnect) and indy was not able to do that. If I want that, I will have to develop a algorithm like heartbeat, pooling or TCP keep-alive. I do not want to spend more time doing a, at least I think, component job. After a few study, I found out that this is not Indy's fault, but this is an issue of all blocking sockets components.
Now I am really thinking of changing the core of the Server to another good suite. I must admit I am tending to use a non-blocking socket. Based on that, I have some questions:
What do a benefit from changing from blocking to non-blocking sockets?
Will I be able to detect client disconnects (non gracefully)?
What component suite has the best product? By best product I mean: fast, good support, good tools and easy to implement.
I know this must be a subjective question, but I really want to hear that from you. My first question is the one I care most. I do not care if I have to pay 100, 500, 1000, 10000 dollars, but I want a complete solution. For now, I am thinking about Ip*works .
EDIT
I think some guys are not understand what I want. I don't want to create my own socket. I have been working with sockets for a long time and I am getting tired of it. Really.
And non-blocking sockets CAN detect client disconnects. That is a fact and it has good documentation all over the internet. A non-blocking socket checks the socket state for new incoming data all the time, and it makes possible to detect that the socket is not valid. This is not a heartbeat algorithm. A heartbeat algorithm is used on client side and it sends periodically packets (aka keep-alive) to the server to tells it is still alive.
EDIT
I am not make myself clear. Maybe because English is not my main language. I am not saying that it is possible to detect a dropped connection without trying to send or receiving data from a socket. What I am saying is that every non-blocking socket is able to do that because they constantly tries to read from the socket for new incoming data. Why is that so hard to understand? If you guys download and run ip*works demos, in special, the echoserver and echoclient ones (both use TCP) you can test by yourselves. I already tested it, and it works like I expected to do. Even if you use the old TCPSocketServer and TCPSocketClient in a non-blocking mode you will see what I meant.
"What do a benefit from changing from blocking to non-blocking sockets? Will I be able to detect client disconnects (non gracefully)?"
Just my two cents to get the ball rolling on this question - I'm not a socket EXPERT, but I do have a good deal of experience with them. If I'm mistaken, I'm sure someone will correct me... :-)
I assume that since you're running a server using blocking sockets with 50 connections per second, you have a threading mechanism in place to handle client requests. If so, you don't really stand to gain anything from non-blocking sockets. On the contrary - you will have to change your server logic to be event driven- based on events fired in your main thread from the non-blocking sockets, or use constant polling to know what your sockets are up to.
Non-blocking sockets can't detect clients disconnecting without notification any more than blocking sockets can - they don't have telepathic powers... The nature of the TCP/IP 'conversation' between client and server is the same - blocking and non-blocking is only with respect to your application's interaction with the socket connection conducting the 'conversation'.
If you need to purge dead connections, you need to implement a heartbeat or timeout mechanism on your socket (I've never seen a modern socket implementation that didn't support timeouts).
What do a benefit from changing from blocking to non-blocking sockets?
Increased speed, availability, and throughput (from my experience). I had an IndySockets client that was getting about 15 requests per second and when I went directly to asynchronous sockets the throughput increased to about 90 requests per second (on the same machine). In a separate benchmark test on a server at a data-center with a 30 Mbit connection I was able to get more than 300 requests per second.
Will I be able to detect client disconnects (non gracefully)?
That's one thing I haven't had to try yet, since all of my code has been on the client side.
What component suite has the best product? By best product I mean: fast, good support, good tools and easy to implement.
You can build your own socket client in a couple of days and it can be very robust and fast... much faster than most of the stuff I've seen "off the shelf". Feel free to take a look at my asynchronous socket client: http://codesprout.blogspot.com/2011/04/asynchronous-http-client.html
Update:
(Per Mikey's comments)
I'm asking you for a generic, technical explanation of how NBS increase throughput as opposed to a properly designed BS server.
Let's take a high load server as an example: say your server is supposed to handle 1000 connections at any given time, with blocking sockets you would have to create 1000 threads and even if they're mostly idle, the CPU will still spend a lot of time context switching. As the number of clients increases you will have to increase the number of threads in order to keep up and the CPU will inevitably increase the context switching. For every connection you establish with a blocking socket, you will incur the overhead of spawning of a new thread and you eventually you will incur the overhead of cleaning up after the thread. Of course, the first thing that comes to mind is: why not use the ThreadPool, you can reuse the threads and reduce the overhead of creating/cleaning-up of threads.
Here is how this is handled on Windows (hence the .NET connection): sure you could, but the first thing you'll notice with the .NET ThreadPool is that it has two types of threads and it's not a coincidence: user threads and I/O completion port threads. Asynchronous sockets use the IO completion ports which "allows a single thread to perform simultaneous I/O operations on different handles, or even simultaneous read and write operations on the same handle."(1) The I/O completion port threads are specifically designed to handle I/O in a much more efficient way than you would ever be able to achieve if you used the user threads in ThreadPool, unless you wrote your own kernel-mode driver.
"The completion port uses some special voodoo to make sure only a specific number of threads can run at once — if one thread blocks in kernel-mode, it will automatically start up another one."(2)
There are other advantages also: "in addition to the nonblocking advantage of the overlapped socket I/O, the other advantage is better performance because you save a buffer copy between the TCP stack buffer and the user buffer for each I/O call." (3)
I am using Indy and Synapse TCP libraries with good results for some years now, and did not find any showstoppers in them. I use the libraries in threads - client and server side, stability and performance was not a problem. (Six thousand request and response messages per second and more with the server running on the same system are typical.)
Blocking sockets are very useful if the protocol is more advanced than a simple 'send a string / receive a string'. Non-blocking sockets cause a higher coupling of message protocol handlers with the socket read / write logic, so I quickly moved away from non-blocking code.
No library can overcome the limitations of the TCP/IP protocol regarding detection of connection loss. Only trying to read or send data can tell wether the connection is still present.
In Windows, there is a third option which is overlapped I/O. Non-blocking sockets are essential a model using Windows messages developed to avoid single-threaded GUI apps to become "blocked" while waiting for data. A modern application IMHO would be better designed using threads and overlapped I/O.
See for example http://support.microsoft.com/kb/181611
Aahhrrgghh - the myth of being able to always detect "dropped" connections. If you pull the power on a machine with a client connection then the server cannot tell, without sending data, that the connection is "dead". The is through the design of the TCP protocol. Don't take my word for it - read this article (Detection of Half-Open (Dropped) TCP/IP Socket Connections).
This article explains the main differences between blocking and non-blocking:
Introduction to Indy, by Chad Z. Hower
Pros of Blocking
Easy to program - Blocking is very easy to program. All user code can
exist in one place, and in a
sequential order.
Easy to port to Unix - Since Unix uses blocking sockets, portable code
can be written easily. Indy uses this
fact to achieve its single source
solution.
Work well in threads - Since blocking sockets are sequential they
are inherently encapsulated and
therefore very easily used in threads.
Cons of Blocking
User Interface "Freeze" with clients - Blocking socket calls do not
return until they have accomplished
their task. When such calls are made
in the main thread of an application,
the application cannot process the
user interface messages. This causes
the User Interface to "freeze" because
the update, repaint and other messages
cannot be processed until the blocking
socket calls return control to the
applications message processing loop.
He also wrote:
Blocking is NOT Evil
Blocking sockets have been repeatedly
attacked with out warrant. Contrary to
popular belief, blocking sockets are
not evil.
It is not is an issue of all blocking sockets components that they are unable to detect a client disconnect. There is no technical advantage on the side of non-blocking components in this area.