I'm currently translating an API from C# to Java which has a network component.
The C# version seems to keep the input and output streams and the socket open for the duration of its classes being used.
Is this correct?
Bearing in mind that the application is sending commands and receiving events based on user input, is it more sensible to open a new socket stream for each "message"?
I'm maintaining a ServerSocket for listening to the server throwing events but I'm not so sure that maintaining a Socket and output stream for outbound comms is such a good idea.
I'm not really used to Socket programming. As with many developers I usually work at the application layer when I need to do networking and not at the socket layer, and it's been 5 or 6 years since I did this stuff at university.
Cheers for the help. I guess this is more asking for advice than for a definitive answer.
There is a trade off between the cost of keeping the connections open and the cost of creating those connections.
Creating connections costs time and bandwidth. You have to do the 3-way TCP handshake, launch a new server thread, ...
Keeping connections open costs mainly memory and connections. Network connections are a resource limited by the OS. If you have too many clients connected, you might run out of available connections. It will cost memory as you will have one thread open for each connection, with its associated state.
The right balanced will be different based on the usage you expect. If you have a lot of clients connecting for short period of times, it's probably gonna be more efficient to close the connections. If you have few clients connecting for long period of time, you should probably keep the connections open ...
If you've only got a single socket on the client and the server, you should keep it open for as long as possible.
If your application and the server it talks to are close, network-wise, it MAY be sensible to close the connection, but if they're distant, network-wise, you are probably better off letting the socket live for the duration.
Guillaume mentioned the 3-way handshake and that basically means that opening a socket will take a minimum of 3 times the shortest packet transit time. That can be approximated by "half the ping round-trip" and can easily reach 60-100 ms for long distances. If you end up with an additional 300 ms wait, for each command, will that impact the user experience?
Personally, I would leave the socket open, it's easier and doesn't cost time for every instance of "need to send something", the relative cost is small (one file descriptor, a bit of memory for the data structures in user-space and some extra storage in the kernel).
It depends on how frequent you expect the user to type in commands. If it happens quite infrequently, you could perhaps close the sockets. If frequent, creating sockets repeatedly can be an expensive operation.
Now having said that, how expensive, in terms of machine resources, is it to have a socket connection open for infrequent data? Why exactly do you think that "maintaining a Socket and output stream for outbound comms is not such a good idea" (even though it seems the right thing to do)? On the other hand, this is different for file streams if you expect that other processes might want to use the same file. Closing the file stream quickly in this case would be the way to go.
How likely is it that you are going to run out of the many TCP connections you can create, which other processes making outbound connections might want to use? Or do you expect to have a large number of clients connecting to your server at a time?
You can also look at DatagramSocket and DatagramPacket. The advantage is lower over-head, the disadvantage is the over-head that regular Socket provides.
I suggest you look at using an existing messaging solution like ActiveMQ or Netty. This will handle lot of the issues you may find with messaging.
I am coming a bit late, but I didn't see anyone suggest that.
I think it will be wise to consider pooling your connections(doesn't matter if Socket or TCP), being able to maintain couple connections open and quickly reuse them in your code base would be optimal in case of performance.
In fact, Roslyn compiler extensively use this technique in a lot of places.
https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/search?l=C%23&q=pooled&type=&utf8=%E2%9C%93
Related
We are using Java nio AsynchronousServerSocketChannel with completion handlers to write to a socket channel.
The sockets are used to communicate locally between two processes running in a same system.
We tend transfer quite a huge data. We use a buffer size 16384 to transfer the data in a chunked manner. Sending over UDP is not an option.
Is there anything else which can be done to improve the performance of the socket channel or reduce the payload transferred ?
Best Regards,
Saurav
There are a number of alternatives you may consider. I expect that you will need to implement each and test the actual performance on your hardware with your application in order to choose the right one.
You can try to tweak your current approach. Some thoughts: much larger buffer, double buffer (use two sockets so the writer always has a socket available for writing and the reader can always be reading), only send differences (if you are continuously sending and updated version of the data), compression, etc.
Use a completely different approach, such as shared memory or a memory-mapped file. A couple of questions with lots of good answers that may get you started: this and that.
While the details depend on your specific environment, you probably can speed up the communication by 10x (or maybe significantly more) over your current socket implementation.
I know there are many open source server programs that leverage java.nio's non-blocking I/O, such as Mina. Many implementations use multiple selectors and multi-threading to handle selected events. It seems like a perfect design.
Is it? What is the bottleneck for an NIO-based server? It seems like there wouldn't be any?
Is there any need to control the number of connections? How would one do so?
With traditional blocking I/O, each connection must be handled by one or more dedicated threads. As the number of connections grows so does the number of required threads. This model works reasonably well with connection numbers into the hundreds or low thousands, but it doesn't scale well past that.
Multiplexing and non-blocking I/O invert the model, allowing one thread to service many different connections. It does so by selecting the active connections and only performing I/O when it's guaranteed the sockets are ready.
This is a much more scalable solution because now you're not having hordes of mostly-inactive threads sitting around twiddling their thumbs. Instead you have one or a few very active threads shuttling between all of the sockets. So what's the bottleneck here?
An NIO-based server is still limited by its CPU. As the number of sockets and the amount of I/O each does grows the CPU will be more and more busy.
The multiplexing threads need to service the sockets as quickly as possible. They can only work with one at a time. If the server isn't careful, there might be too much work going on in these threads. When that happens it can take some careful, perhaps difficult programming to move the work off-thread.
If the incoming data can't be processed immediately, it may be prudent to copy it off to a separate memory buffer so it's not sitting in the operating system's queue. That copying takes both time and additional memory.
Programs can't have an infinite number of file descriptors / kernel handles open. Every socket has associated read and write buffers in the OS, so you'll eventually run into the operating system's limits.
Obviously, you're still limited by your hardware and network infrastructure. A server is limited by its NIC, by the bandwidth and latency of other network hops, etc.
This is a very generic answer. To really answer this question you need to examine the particular server program in question. Every program is different. There may be bottlenecks in any particular program that aren't Java NIO's "fault", so to speak.
What is the bottleneck for an NIO-based server?
The network, memory, CPU, all the usual things.
It seems like there wouldn't be any?
Why?
Is there any need to control the number of connections?
Not really.
How would one do so?
Count them in and out, and deregister OP_ACCEPT while you're at the maximum.
Here is the original link that spawned this question.
So, apparently DataGramSocket will not queue received packets. So if two systems send concurrently, one of the packets will get lost (using the code from the link). I'm looking for ways to avoid dropping packets in this case.
If you want to be sure no data (packet) gets lost use TCP!
An advantage of UDP is that is has less overhead and is thus used for congested, high traffic connections, like video or game streams. A reason for the lower overhead is the lack of guarantees about data not getting missing during the transmission.
From your question is seems that you do care about missing data, so you need to build in measures to detect this. If you do you probably want the data to be resend until it arrived properly? This is what TCP offers you..!
If it is really Java that is dropping the data it is probably due to queues being full. The UDP protocol might be 'over', but Java knows there is a UDP protocol with all of its 'consequences'. As UDP is designed for high-throughput, the Java parts are designed for the same requirement. Queuing everything causes (massive) overhead which contrary to the UDP design, so this is highly unlikely. Furthermore, dropping data from a queue is nothing different than losing data during transmission (IMHO), so it does not surprise me that Java drops data!
If you want to prevent this you need bigger queues (although the might fill as well) and more importantly faster handling of the queued data (to prevent filling the queues).
But the most important thing to do is to accept data loss! If your application/server cannot handle this: do not use UDP
There are queues but they are always limited and you can always reach the limit. There is no way to avoid such issue completely. You can minimise the impact by having a low load on your servers so it can drain the queues quickly, and a dedicated network for UDP traffic.
Generally you have to build in some allowance for lost packets and you have to make the protocol reliable.
This could probably be the strangest question every asked here. I'll try to explain it the best I can.
I need to rapidly develop a network application in Java, integrating a bunch of old network applications (I already have the code for them) and making everything work together. Each old application will become a sub-function of the new one; the new one is fundamentally a "wrapper".
Obviously, each of these applications (which have been developed by different people in different times) work in different way, with different protocols, with radically different syntax for the messages (i.e. some protocols use binary messages, some other use HTTP like messages, some other use XML) and different message order strategies (pipelining, stop and wait, etc...).
Fortunately, they are all TCP.
The wrapper application should work opening something like 6-7 different sockets at different ports, and this is not good for our network administrators. They only want one socket on one port. So all the protocols have to crush on the same pipe.
Is there any pure Java, out-of-the-box solution to multiplex and demultiplex many independent full-duplex streams on the very same TCP socket, in a transparent and hassle-free manner?
Or is there a simpler solution I'm forgetting about?
EDIT: the sub-streams are independent, i.e. there's no deadlock possibility caused by one sub-stream waiting for some stuff coming from another.
You can't do it in a transparent manner over TCP.
Consider for example what will happen if your application sends a request over one of the "channels" that depends on data it needs to get on another "channel". If a network conditions drops enough packets of one of the "channels" to cause your TCP connection to stall (due to TCP window) waiting for response you would in effect be stalling all the other "channels" in the same TCP connection since they share the same window and you can get into a deadlock
This would not have happen before with each channel in the same window.
This may or may not affect your specific application - but it might, so this technique is not transparent. You can try using SCTP to overcome this, if possible
I have a Java program (call it Jack) and an Objective-C program (call it Oscar), which I run on the same Mac OS X computer. Oscar sends a string message via a socket to Jack, once per second.
For reliability and performance would it be better to maintain an open socket between Jack and Oscar? Or would it be better to repeatedly open a socket, send the message, then close the socket again?
Keep it open. You are going to need it a lot (once per second), and there's some overhead involved in opening new sockets. Plus, you will be chewing up the heap with new objects until the garbage collector comes by.
Keep it open Jack, keep it open. It takes me some CPU cycles already to open and close the connection only to do it again the next second.
Would it be easier to make a Java Native Interface call? Personally, I think that messing with sockets locally might be a little overkill, but then again, I do not know the whole story about what you are trying to accomplish.
If you can stand to drop a packet or two, you might want to use UDP instead.
Every once in a while, long-term TCP connections get a little funky and hang when the connection goes bad. Usually the recover, but not always--and in the meantime they can get slow.
UDP is made to operate better in cases where you are resending all the data every time and didn't need every single packet because you don't care about the history...
Keeping an open connection may work for you and is theoretically fine... I just haven't always had the best luck.
Sorry I read the question rather quickly. Yes I would keep the socket open if it is on the local machine. It makes no sense to be opening and closing every memory needs to be allocated. Grinding back and forth won't help in that case.
Just so I understand correctly, you are writing a Cocoa server app that listens for a connection just so it can pass some data to a Java app that doesn't have access to the information returned from the Cocoa API?
Are you sure you couldn't just get the results from a terminal command in Java. I'm totally guessing but I thought if this is the case you could improve what you plan to do.