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
Related
I am writing an app that is suppose to work without a connection to mobile carrier and without local WiFi. Each device will act as transmitter, receiver and router.
My main challenge so far is that I cannot figure out how exactly MultipeerConnectivity works as documentation on MC is really limited. Apple denied revealing technical specification of MC claiming it's a proprietary network stack, so I have to rely on network sniffers and reverse-engineering which is not the quickest way to figure out how MC works.
Suppose I have 100 devices forming a mesh network in such way that each device is within the range of at least one other device and at maximum three other devices.
Is there any way to send a message from node A to node B that is not within the range of node A without the need to broadcast the message to all other nodes? I mean that message should be properly routed through all other nodes.
Does MC include a routing layer too or I have to write it myself?
From what I can see ad hoc delay tolerant wireless networks is still a hot subject in research.
These slides on ad hoc delay tolerant wireless network shed more light on the subject as it was a few years ago. And also this paper. Has Apple progressed it much with MC?
I cannot really see any way to send a message between nodes not directly connected to each other without flooding.
Correct?
The MCSession Reference states that
Sessions currently support up to 8 peers, including the local peer.
Also, the overview you cited says
In the discovery phase, your app uses a browser object […] to browse for nearby peers[.]
Moreover, the documentation on managing peers manually suggests that all peers in a session must be connected with each other to have them in a session.
This is suggesting that the framework only covers the communication between nearby devices, as in 'reachable by bluetooth or WiFi'. Naturally, those devices do not need complex routing, as they do communicate with each other and the benefit of the framework is simple multicasting between nearby devices, from a programmers' point of view.
As far as your question goes, this is about it - trivially, since all peers an a MCSession have links to each other - there is no routing needed.
This does however, allow you to construct a routing layer pretty easy.
Given your scenario, there will be multiple MCSessions with devices being part of at least one. All devices that are part of more than one MCSession do become routers and interconnect the MCSessions with each other.
The rest of the task should be straight forward; defining a namespace for addressing devices and implementing a routing protocol of your choice.
The old days of the internet, with unstable dialup connections, might be a plus factor for you as the routing protocols in place are rather stable in regards of link loss.
Here are two good starting points for you to make your choice of better fit:
Link state routing
Distance vector routing
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 a strange szenario:
Webserver / Appserver (Java) sends requests to many different satellite systems (on customers site). Only satellite systems can initiate connection due to firewall rules.
The model I think should be something like REQ/REP, but here the REQuester have to bind and the REPlyer would have to connect.
Is this possible and a stable architecture?
Are there better solutions? (We first had WebSockets in mind...)
Remark: we don't have to use Java on both ends. To be precise on customers site we have Delphi, but we could bridge it somehow.
The model I think should be something like REQ/REP, but here the
REQuester have to bind and the REPlyer would have to connect.
This will be problematic. When the server initiates the connection, it must be aware of all peers and their bind address. Not a big deal for a handful of peers, but for many peers changing constantly, it's a mess.
Only satellite systems can initiate connection due to firewall rules.
If that's the case, your mileage will vary with WebSockets; google around, lots of info on this.
Are there better solutions?
Well, with ZeroMq, one solution that comes to mind to support client request initiation is this:
Server binds with ROUTER
Clients connect with DEALER.
This approach offers bi-directional request/reply, does not block (asynchronous), and eliminates the client-side bind problem mentioned in your question. Here, the server binds, and either side can initiate the conversation.
I recommend reading this section in the guide, it covers extended async request/reply and message enveloping, important when using ROUTER/DEALER sockets.
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.
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.