I'm trying to use ActiveMQ in my application. In order to test it, I wrote two small Java applications, one acting as a Message Broker (server) and one application acting as a client. The client is able to publish messages to the server and they are supposed to be sent back to all clients (similar to a chat room chat client). It works all well between a few machines even across a VPN network, but a few clients act up funny. Especially one computer connects properly to the client and message sent from it will be sent to all clients, but it just does not receive message sent from other clients.
I am now wondering on how could I possibly debug this behaviour. I disabled the firewall on that machine, but I am still not able to resolve the issue.
Is there anything I can do to debug this in a convenient way?
Cheers,
Max
Related
We are working on a Android project with the below requirements.
The application should be able to send data to all the devices which are running our application which exists in the WiFi LAN.
Some payloads are expected to be of size >= 5MB.
The data shouldn't be lost and if lost the client should know the failure.
All the devices should be able to communicate with all other. There will be no message targeted to a specific device instead all the messages should be reached all the devices in the N/W.
No internet hence no remote server.
Study we have done:-
UDP Broadcasting - UDP doesn't guarantee the message delivery but this is a prime requirement in our case. Hence not an option.
TCP - TCP guarantees the message delivery but requires the receiver IP address to be known before hand and in our case we need to send the message to all the devices inside the LAN. Hence not a straight option.
Solutions we are looking into:-
A Hybrid approach - Name one of the devices in the N/W as Server. Post all the messages to a local Server. The Server keeps a open socket to all the devices(which have our application) & when there is a message from a device then it routes the message to all the devices. The disadvantages of this approach are,
Server having multiple sockets open each per device. But in our case we are expecting devices <=5 in LAN.
Server discovery using continuous UDP broadcast.
We want to have all the data in all the devices. So if we newly introduce any device into the LAN then that device needs to get all the data from the server.
So my question, have you any time worked on these kind of hybrid approaches? Or can you suggest any other approaches?
Your hybrid approach is the way to go.
Cleanly split your problem into parts and solve them independently:
Discovery: Devices need to be able to discover the server, if there is any.
Select server: Decide which of your devices assumes the server role.
Server implementation: The server distributes all data to all devices and sends notifications as necessary. Push or pull with notifications does not matter.
Client implementation: Clients only talk to the server. The device which contains the server should also contain a normal client, potentially passing data to the server directly, but using the same abstract protocol.
You could use mDNS (aka Bonjour or zeroconf) for the discovery, but I would not even recommend that. It often createsmore problems than it solves, and it does not solve your 'I need one server' problem. I would suggest you handcraft a simple UDP broadcast protocol for the discovery, which already tells you who the server is, if there is any.
Select server: One approach is to use network meta data which you have anyway, for example 'use the device with the highest IP address'. This often works better than fancy arbitration algorithms. Once you established a server new devices would use this, rather than switching the server role.
Use UDP broadcast for the discovery, with manual heuristic repeats. No fancy logic, just make your protocol resilient against repeated packets and repeat your packets. (Your WLAN router may repeat your packets without your knowledge anyway.)
You may want to use two TCP connections per client, potentially to two different server ports, but that does not matter much: One control connection (always very responsive, no big amounts of data, just a few hundred bytes per message) and one data connection (for the bulk of the data, your > 5 MB chunks). This is so that everything stays responsive.
I'm currently developing a Java WebSocket Client Application and I have to make sure that every message from the server is received by the client. Is it possible that I lose some messages (once they are sent from the server) due to a connection interruption? WebSocket is based on TCP so this shouldn't happen right?
It can happen. TCP guarantees the order of packets, but it does not mean that all packets sent from a server reach a client even when an unrecoverable trouble happens in an underlying network. Imagine someone pulls out your LAN cable or switches off your WiFi access point at the worst timing while your application is communicating with your server. TCP does not overcome such a trouble.
To ensure that every WebSocket message sent from your server reaches your client, you have to implement some kind of SYN/ACK in the application layer.
TCP is a guaranteed protocol - packets will be received in the correct order by the higher application levels at the far end (this is as opposed to UDP which is a send and hope protocol).
Generally speaking TCP should be be used for connections where all the data must arrive correctly at the far end. UDP is used where a missing packet can be dropped without significant issue (e.g. streaming services, NTP updates)
In my game, to counter missed web socket messages, I added an int/long ID for each message. When the client detects that something is wrong in the sequence of IDs it receives, the client will request for new data from the server to be able to recover properly.
TCP has something called Control Flow- which means it provides reliable, ordered, and error-checked delivery.
In other words TCP is a protocol that checks constantly whether the data arrived.
This protocol has different mechanisms to ensure that.
You can see the difference between TCP and UDP (which has no control flow) in the link below.
Difference between tcp and udp
I'm working on a multi-client application that will connect with a server in the LAN.
Every client can send a command that changes the status of the server.
This 'ServerStatus', as I will call it, is an object with some values.
Now if the ServerStatus changes, all clients should know about it immediatly.
My idea was to work like this:
Server sends a multicast to all listening clients with a versionNumber of the ServerStatus every second. So if a new client joins the multicast group, he will see if his versionNumber is the same.
If not, the client will ask the current version of ServerStatus via UDP.
When a client sends a command that changes the ServerStatus,
the server will send his current (and new) ServerStatus to the same multicast group,
while in another thread, the versionnumber of ServerStatus is still shared every second.
Do you guys think this is a good way to deal with this?
Or will this cause too much problems,... etc
What happens if the new ServerStatus fails to reach the clients? In my opinion you should not use UDP when sending the new status to the clients, but a reliable protocol. So if you intend to use multicast on this you will have to get a reliable multicast protocol.
On the other hand, you may prefer client synchronization with the server:
Every time a client enters the network it asks the server its statusid (if not the same, the server sends him ServerStatus) and the client also registers for new status change events. (TCP)
When leaving, the client could send a UNREGISTER message (UDP).
Each time ServerStatus changes, the server sends the new ServerStatus to each registered client. On receiving the new Serverstatus the client would send an ack-like to the server.(TCP)
If the ack was not received by the server, the client in question would be unregistered (because it would mean the client had left the network without unregistering - by error).
hope this helps..
Basically, your idea sounds good to me
I would suggest you dig more into principals of "group communication", and look at frameworks such as jGroups, I know that JBoss Cache uses it to distrubte data among its nodes.
Maybe for reliability clients should also query the server once in X seconds, to see they they ave the correct version number,
or at least perform this when they are started / recover from crash.
I am trying to write an application which will run in many machines, and these machines will communicate with each other through sending a stream of UDP packets. Usually one machine will be sending many packets to another machine, until they switch and another one will do the same to another machine and so forth. Choosing UDP is due to the nature of the application (real-time/speed more important than reliability). I also understand that UDP is a connectionless protocol.
By doing a quick prototype, I managed to create a NIO Datagram Server (bind), and a NIO Datagram Client (connect). However, I realized that I can only send one way only from the client to the server (or maybe I am missing something?). I couldn't send in the opposite direction.
Also, since UDP is a connectionless protocol, I thought that it was supposed to accept many clients sending packets to it (n-client to one server), and the other way around (server sending to clients one-by-one or multi/broad-cast).
Should I create a server in the client listening to a different port to acheive two-way? Can n-client send packets to one server at the same time?
I just want someone to clear this thing to me. No need for sample code (although it will be greatly appreciated), you can give me some pointers.
Thank you.
For what you are describing, you need one server thread and one more client thread in EACH and EVERY instance of your program running on different machines.
Create a multi threaded program, with a serving thread, and a client thread - the client thread needs to know about all servers - IP and Port. The server simply listens on a port on the current machine.
If you run this same program on multiple machines, You will get a p2p group.
You can also set up a tracker on a free server in the internet. A tracker program will rest in a well known URL, and will maintain a list of participating machines. Each instance of your program when started on a machine will update the tracker of details necessary to connect to it, and the tracker can maintain a list of this data and share it all with any new instance coming up later.
I am looking to build an instant messenger in Java.
Clients will connect to the server to log in.
They will start a conversation with one or more other clients.
They will then post messages to the server that will relay the messages to all the clients.
The client needs to be continually updated when users post messages or log in.
so the way I see it, the client needs to run a server itself in a separate thread so that the main server can send stuff to it. Otherwise the client will have to the poll the main server every xyz seconds to get the latest updates. And that would need a separate thread anayway, as that would be purely for getting updates whereas the 'main' thread would be used for when the client initiates actions such as posting messages/inviting others to conversations etc...
So anyone recommendations on how to write this instant messenger? Does it sound like a good idea to make the connection a 'two-way' connection where both the client and server act as servers? Or is polling a better option? Anyone know how the IRC protocol does this?
There's no real advantage of having 2 connections unless they can be handled independently (for example receiving / sending a file usually done in a separate connection). A connection itself is already a two-way communication channel so it can be used to both send and receive messages, events etc. You don't need to poll server since client is able to maintain persistent connection and just wait for data to appear (optionally sending periodic PING-like message to ensure connection is alive).
IRC uses a single connection to server to exchange text commands. For example one of the main commands:
PRIVMSG <msgtarget> <message>
This command can be originated either by client or by server. Client sends PRIVMSG to notify that it wants to deliver message to one or more destination (in IRC this either user(s) or channel(s)). Server's task here is to properly broadcast this message to appropriate clients.
If you're using raw InputOutput streams then yes this is a good way of doing it. You create one thread on the clientside that acts in a similar fashion as the server thread - waits for any incoming updates and when it does it updates the client. I wouldn't call it a server though. So you'd ideally have 2 TCP/UDP connections one for requests made by the client and one to notify the client of server changes.
This solution in an enterprise environment would probably be done through some kind of messaging framework such as Spring Integration but dig deep enough and it will essentially be a similar way to how you mentioned.
Do you need a fully custom protocol or would it be sufficient to use the XMPP? There are several open source libraries implementing XMPP.
http://xmpp.org/xmpp-software/libraries/
e.g. http://www.igniterealtime.org/projects/smack/
For me, to develop instant messaging service, I will use websocket protocol instead of normal java socket because the normal socket can not work well with HTTP protocol and moreover some network providers and firewalls banned custom ports. If you develop it in normal socket, your service could not be accessed by web clients.
Did you plan to develop the instant messaging service yourself? How about using other protocols such as Jabber?