I already tried the server prog but server can't distinguish between the clients please help me.
A client server program in which server counts the no of client's visited to the server.
Server handles the multiple client at same time.
A connection is always uniquely identified by two things: The "clients" address/port, and the "servers" address/port. The most common way to uniquely identify a client is to use its address/port pair.
Or if you just want to have a simple but unique small integer value, you can use the fact that the most common implementations use just a small integer value for the actual socket.
In C++ you could, for example, use a std::unordered_map to store the data for each connection. Use the socket as the key, and a structure containing the needed data for the map data.
In C you most likely use a simple single-link list for the connection data, each structure containing the socket. To find the data corresponding to a specific socket just iterate over the list to find it.
Related
Here is the context for the problem I am trying to solve.
There are computers A and B, as well as a server S. Server S implements some backend which handles incoming requests in a RESTful manner.
The backend S has a shelf. The goal of users A and B is to make S create and place numbered boxes on that shelf. A unique constraint is that no two boxes can have the same number. Once a box is created, S should return that box (JSON, or xml...) back to A and B with its allocated number.
The problem boils down to concurrency, as A and B's POST ("create-numbered-box") transactions may arrive at the exact same time at the database - hence get cancelled (?). I remind, there is a unique constraint - no two boxes are allowed to have a same number.
What are possible ways to solve this problem? I wouldn't like to lock the database, so I am looking for alternatives of that. You are allowed to imagine that between the database and the backend layer calling the database we may have an extra layer of abstraction, e.g. a microservice, messaging queue... whatever or nothing at all - a direct backend - db exec. query call. If you think a postgres database is not a good choice to say a graph one, or document one, key-value one - feel free to substitute it.
The goal is in the end given concurrent writes users A and B to get responses to their create (POST) requests and each of them have a box on that shared shelf with a unique number, with no "Oops, something went wrong. Please retry" type of server response.
I described a simple world with users A and B but that can in theory go up to 10 000 users writing, not just 2.
As a secondary question, I'd like to ask, is there a way to test conflicting concurrent transactions in postgres?
I will go first.
My idea is, let A and B send requests and fail. Once they fail, have retries with random timeouts in some interval. Let's say up to 3 retries. This way for A and B I will try to separate the requested writes to the db and this would allow for some degree of successful resolution of the scenario. However, I don't think this is a clean solution and I am looking for alternatives you can think of. Just, please keep in mind the constraints and freedoms I mentioned above.
Databases such as Posgres include capabilities to have a unique number generated by the database (see PostgreSQL - SERIAL - Generate IDs (Identity, Auto-increment)). So the logic for your backend service S could be:
lookup if user has a record in the database already
return the id if it does
otherwise, create a record and return the newly allocated id
To avoid creating multiple boxes for the same user you need to serialize the lookup/create logic based on user id. Approaches to that vary from merely handling one request at a time in your service S to, for example, having Kafka topics that partition requests to different instances of service S based on user ids -- all depends on the scale.
Multiple Access Points are in a network. They need to sync client data whenever a client connects to any one of the AP.
I've studied ZeroMQ documentation for REQ/REP, PUB/SUB and PUSH/PULL patterns. Not quite sure which pattern really works for the above requirement between PUSH/PULL and PUB/SUB.
In the documentation, it is mentioned that,
One socket may have many outgoing and many incoming connections.
How to achieve this using one of the above patterns so that the data among APs always in sync.
Points to be considered
APs join network arbitrarily.
If a client connects to an AP, it's data need to be stored in all APs.
ZeroMQs are for C language.
You could look at the Harmony peer/peer pattern; it's discussed in the ZMQ guide. Access points could then send a client state message to all their peer access points every time a client connects. No single access point would be a "master" - they would be true peers.
Alternatively you could have one of the access points setting itself up as a "master" (a bound PULL socket), to which slave access points connect and send client data through a PUSH socket. The "master" would then send that data back out to the other access points on a PUB socket, with slave access points receiving that on a SUB socket. It's not a very elegant solution, the master has to handle the entire network's client data traffic, but it may be easier to use.
we want to build an application (c#/.Net) for the following Scenario:
internal "alert System". Users should be informed about it-system outage, planned downtime for Services and so on.
only one-way : central Service will push Messages to user
we also Need the possibility to enable/disable a message, for example:
The message "there a Problems with mail System" should be removed from every Computer after the Problem is solved
we want to shedule Messages for planned maintanance
about 1000 windows Clients, we also want to "group" this Clients, so we can control which Client will get a message
First thought was writing small application which will query every X seconds a central database for new and existing Messages.
Maybe somebody has already worked on similar Project?
Is a Client with database query a way to go? Better to use other Technology, like WCF Service?
Thanks for your help
Marc
Sounds like you need an enhanced version of push notifications.
I'd suggest using push for all the messaging, it's delivered faster and I find it more reliable. Simply make the client connect to a message server and maintain the connection open. Whenever a message is supposed to be displayed to the client, have the server push it trough the connection (that's where the name comes from).
To group and manage the clients you could use a database, it's probably the best way to go, but the server needs to handle all the open connections, and databases can only store DATA, not virtual objects representing a connection, so the server software need to manage them in a different way.
My suggestion: Whenever the server receives an incoming client connection, it will accept and query the client computer for a ID number that will also be used to find that client's information in the database.
Then it will create a dictionary using that ID as key, and the connection as the value.
This way at the time of sending a message to a determined group, you can do in two ways:
1) You can load from the database the IDs that belong to that group, and then send the messages to them. You will have to check whether that ID exists in the dictionary's KEYS array, because it is possible that a determined client is not yet connected.
2) You can iterate of the KEYS array of dictionary, check to which group that ID is part of, and if it is the desires group, send it.
If you're dealing with a big number of clients, I suggest you use method 1.
To disable/remove a message from the client's computer, simply have the server send a special Command message that the client software interprets as "remove that message". To make this possible every non-command message must have unique IDs, so that command messages can tell the client software which message that command applies to.
Your project sounds very interesting.
I would be glad to help you by writing a library you could use, or just help you figure it out on your own if you prefer. (Free of charge, just for the experience).
We have four Biztalk servers on production envionment. The sendport is configured to write incoming message in one textfile. This port receives thousands of messages in a day. So multiple host instances tries to write to file at single time, before one instance finishes writing complete record another instances starts writing new record causing data scattered all over the file.
What can we do resolve this issue?
...before one instance finishes writing complete record another instances starts writing new record causing data scattered all over the file.
What can we do resolve this issue?
The easy way is to only use a single Host Instance to write data to the file, however you may then start to experience throttling issues. Alternatively, you could explore using the 'Allow Cache on write' option on the File Adapter which may offer some improvements.
However, I think your approach is wrong. You cannot expect four separate and totally disconnected processes (across 4 servers no-less) to reliably append to a single file - IN ORDER.
I therefore think you should look re-architecting this solution:
As each message is received, write the contents of the message to a database table (a simple INSERT) with an 'unprocessed' flag. You can reliably have four Host Instances banging data into SQL without fear of them tripping over each other.
At a scheduled time, have BizTalk extract all of the records that are marked as unprocessed in that SQL Table (the WCF-SQL Adapter can help you here). Once you have polled the records, mark them as 'in-process'.
You should now have a single message containing all of the currently unprocessed records (as retrieved from SQL). Using a single (or multiple) Host Instance/s, write the message to disk, appending each of the records to the file in a single write. The key here is that you are only writing a single message to the one file, not lots and lots and lots :-)
If the write is successful, update each of the records in the SQL table with a 'processed' flag so they are not picked-up again on the next poll.
You might want to consider a singleton orchestration for this piece to ensure that there is only ever one poll-write-update process taking place at the same time.
If FIFO is important, BizTalk has ordered delivery mechanism (FILE adapter supported) but it comes at performance cost.
The better solution would be let instances writing to individual files and then have another scheduled process (or orchestration) to combine them in one file. You can enforce FIFO using timestamps. This would provide better performance and resource utilization vs. mentioned earlier singleton orchestration. Other option may be using any suitable implementation of a queue.
You can move to a database system instead of a file. That would be very simply solution and also very efficient.
If you don't want to go that way, you must implement file locking or a semaphore inside of your application so the new threads will wait for other threads to finish writing.
I have a chat client in flash using binary sockets and a server in C/linux using sockets and libev. I have everything working properly for sending and receiving messages but now I am on to the more complicated step.
For my chat server I will be grouping users into groups of 15. The server will need to have a unique ID for each user and be able to quickly determine which group a user is in to broadcast the message to the other 14 users. I'm thinking the server could use the file descriptor for each socket connection as those should all be unique.
The problem is this: you get a read event fired from libev for a certain file descriptor. You now need to quickly determine which group this FD belongs to and then broadcast the message to everyone in the group. What is the best data structure for this problem?
HashTable.
Have each user have a groupID associated with it and the hashTable will use groupIDs as keys and arrays of UserIDs as values.