When you send one MPI message that consist of n elements of some MPI_type in one process and then receive in another with receive count being > n are you guaranteed to always receive all of the n elements?
In essence, if you send one message via blocking-mode MPI_Send and then receive it via one blocking-mode MPI_Recv with big enough receive buffer are you guaranteed to get the whole message?
Or is there a chance that you might get only fist k < n elements and should call MPI_Recv repeatedly until you get the whole thing.
I'm pretty sure the answer is yes but looking at both the official documentation and specification notes I couldn't find a sure answer.
As Gilles and David said in comments, the answer is yes. As Gilles says, you never get a truncated message. If n > count then MPI will report an error and fail.
If n <= count then the receive will complete but in general you don't know what the value of n is (the size of the incoming message). You need to extract this from the status variable via a call to MPI_Get_count().
I'm using a SCPI device over RS-232. I have a number of situations where I want to know that a command has completed before continuing. What seems sensible to me is to end with a query to force the device to send a response line after everything is done, something like the following:
:volt 12.34;volt?
It is my understanding that volt? executes strictly after volt 12.34 and thus, when I get the response line for volt?, I'll know that the voltage has been set. I can also check the response value as a sanity check.
Does this approach acheive what I want? Should the response value always correspond to the value I put in (if it was a valid value)? Is there a better way to do this that I'm not seeing?
(I would have used a SCPI tag, but it does not seem to exist.)
*OPC? is a query returning 1 when the last operation completed, so:
:volt 12.34;*OPC?
would return 1 only after the operation has completed.
But if you want to make sure what volt is, you still need to query it (for example if you gave out of range voltage. I know some devices might still return 1 for the *OPC but leaving voltage as it is / nearest possible value)
I am looking for possible techniques to gracefully handle race conditions in network protocol design. I find that in some cases, it is particularly hard to synchronize two nodes to enter a specific protocol state. Here is an example protocol with such a problem.
Let's say A and B are in an ESTABLISHED state and exchange data. All messages sent by A or B use a monotonically increasing sequence number, such that A can know the order of the messages sent by B, and A can know the order of the messages sent by B. At any time in this state, either A or B can send a ACTION_1 message to the other, in order to enter a different state where a strictly sequential exchange of message needs to happen:
send ACTION_1
recv ACTION_2
send ACTION_3
However, it is possible that both A and B send the ACTION_1 message at the same time, causing both of them to receive an ACTION_1 message, while they would expect to receive an ACTION_2 message as a result of sending ACTION_1.
Here are a few possible ways this could be handled:
1) change state after sending ACTION_1 to ACTION_1_SENT. If we receive ACTION_1 in this state, we detect the race condition, and proceed to arbitrate who gets to start the sequence. However, I have no idea how to fairly arbitrate this. Since both ends are likely going to detect the race condition at about the same time, any action that follows will be prone to other similar race conditions, such as sending ACTION_1 again.
2) Duplicate the entire sequence of messages. If we receive ACTION_1 in the ACTION_1_SENT state, we include the data of the other ACTION_1 message in the ACTION_2 message, etc. This can only work if there is no need to decide who is the "owner" of the action, since both ends will end up doing the same action to each other.
3) Use absolute time stamps, but then, accurate time synchronization is not an easy thing at all.
4) Use lamport clocks, but from what I understood these are only useful for events that are causally related. Since in this case the ACTION_1 messages are not causally related, I don't see how it could help solve the problem of figuring out which one happened first to discard the second one.
5) Use some predefined way of discarding one of the two messages on receipt by both ends. However, I cannot find a way to do this that is unflawed. A naive idea would be to include a random number on both sides, and select the message with the highest number as the "winner", discarding the one with the lowest number. However, we have a tie if both numbers are equal, and then we need another way to recover from this. A possible improvement would be to deal with arbitration once at connection time and repeat similar sequence until one of the two "wins", marking it as favourite. Every time a tie happens, the favourite wins.
Does anybody have further ideas on how to handle this?
EDIT:
Here is the current solution I came up with. Since I couldn't find 100% safe way to prevent ties, I decided to have my protocol elect a "favorite" during the connection sequence. Electing this favorite requires breaking possible ties, but in this case the protocol will allow for trying multiple times to elect the favorite until a consensus is reached. After the favorite is elected, all further ties are resolved by favoring the elected favorite. This isolates the problem of possible ties to a single part of the protocol.
As for fairness in the election process, I wrote something rather simple based on two values sent in each of the client/server packets. In this case, this number is a sequence number starting at a random value, but they could be anything as long as those numbers are fairly random to be fair.
When the client and server have to resolve a conflict, they both call this function with the send (their value) and the recv (the other value) values. The favorite calls this function with the favorite parameter set to TRUE. This function is guaranteed to give the opposite result on both ends, such that it is possible to break the tie without retransmitting a new message.
BOOL ResolveConflict(BOOL favorite, UINT32 sendVal, UINT32 recvVal)
{
BOOL winner;
int sendDiff;
int recvDiff;
UINT32 xorVal;
xorVal = sendVal ^ recvVal;
sendDiff = (xorVal < sendVal) ? sendVal - xorVal : xorVal - sendVal;
recvDiff = (xorVal < recvVal) ? recvVal - xorVal : xorVal - recvVal;
if (sendDiff != recvDiff)
winner = (sendDiff < recvDiff) ? TRUE : FALSE; /* closest value to xorVal wins */
else
winner = favorite; /* break tie, make favorite win */
return winner;
}
Let's say that both ends enter the ACTION_1_SENT state after sending the ACTION_1 message. Both will receive the ACTION_1 message in the ACTION_1_SENT state, but only one will win. The loser accepts the ACTION_1 message and enters the ACTION_1_RCVD state, while the winner discards the incoming ACTION_1 message. The rest of the sequence continues as if the loser had never sent ACTION_1 in a race condition with the winner.
Let me know what you think, and how this could be further improved.
To me, this whole idea that this ACTION_1 - ACTION_2 - ACTION_3 handshake must occur in sequence with no other message intervening is very onerous, and not at all in line with the reality of networks (or distributed systems in general). The complexity of some of your proposed solutions give reason to step back and rethink.
There are all kinds of complicating factors when dealing with systems distributed over a network: packets which don't arrive, arrive late, arrive out of order, arrive duplicated, clocks which are out of sync, clocks which go backwards sometimes, nodes which crash/reboot, etc. etc. You would like your protocol to be robust under any of these adverse conditions, and you would like to know with certainty that it is robust. That means making it simple enough that you can think through all the possible cases that may occur.
It also means abandoning the idea that there will always be "one true state" shared by all nodes, and the idea that you can make things happen in a very controlled, precise, "clockwork" sequence. You want to design for the case where the nodes do not agree on their shared state, and make the system self-healing under that condition. You also must assume that any possible message may occur in any order at all.
In this case, the problem is claiming "ownership" of a shared clipboard. Here's a basic question you need to think through first:
If all the nodes involved cannot communicate at some point in time, should a node which is trying to claim ownership just go ahead and behave as if it is the owner? (This means the system doesn't freeze when the network is down, but it means you will have multiple "owners" at times, and there will be divergent changes to the clipboard which have to be merged or otherwise "fixed up" later.)
Or, should no node ever assume it is the owner unless it receives confirmation from all other nodes? (This means the system will freeze sometimes, or just respond very slowly, but you will never have weird situations with divergent changes.)
If your answer is #1: don't focus so much on the protocol for claiming ownership. Come up with something simple which reduces the chances that two nodes will both become "owner" at the same time, but be very explicit that there can be more than one owner. Put more effort into the procedure for resolving divergence when it does happen. Think that part through extra carefully and make sure that the multiple owners will always converge. There should be no case where they can get stuck in an infinite loop trying to converge but failing.
If your answer is #2: here be dragons! You are trying to do something which buts up against some fundamental limitations.
Be very explicit that there is a state where a node is "seeking ownership", but has not obtained it yet.
When a node is seeking ownership, I would say that it should send a request to all other nodes, at intervals (in case another one misses the first request). Put a unique identifier on each such request, which is repeated in the reply (so delayed replies are not misinterpreted as applying to a request sent later).
To become owner, a node should receive a positive reply from all other nodes within a certain period of time. During that wait period, it should refuse to grant ownership to any other node. On the other hand, if a node has agreed to grant ownership to another node, it should not request ownership for another period of time (which must be somewhat longer).
If a node thinks it is owner, it should notify the others, and repeat the notification periodically.
You need to deal with the situation where two nodes both try to seek ownership at the same time, and both NAK (refuse ownership to) each other. You have to avoid a situation where they keep timing out, retrying, and then NAKing each other again (meaning that nobody would ever get ownership).
You could use exponential backoff, or you could make a simple tie-breaking rule (it doesn't have to be fair, since this should be a rare occurrence). Give each node a priority (you will have to figure out how to derive the priorities), and say that if a node which is seeking ownership receives a request for ownership from a higher-priority node, it will immediately stop seeking ownership and grant it to the high-priority node instead.
This will not result in more than one node becoming owner, because if the high-priority node had previously ACKed the request sent by the low-priority node, it would not send a request of its own until enough time had passed that it was sure its previous ACK was no longer valid.
You also have to consider what happens if a node becomes owner, and then "goes dark" -- stops responding. At what point are other nodes allowed to assume that ownership is "up for grabs" again? This is a very sticky issue, and I suspect you will not find any solution which eliminates the possibility of having multiple owners at the same time.
Probably, all the nodes will need to "ping" each other from time to time. (Not referring to an ICMP echo, but something built in to your own protocol.) If the clipboard owner can't reach the others for some period of time, it must assume that it is no longer owner. And if the others can't reach the owner for a longer period of time, they can assume that ownership is available and can be requested.
Here is a simplified answer for the protocol of interest here.
In this case, there is only a client and a server, communicating over TCP. The goal of the protocol is to two system clipboards. The regular state when outside of a particular sequence is simply "CLIPBOARD_ESTABLISHED".
Whenever one of the two systems pastes something onto its clipboard, it sends a ClipboardFormatListReq message, and transitions to the CLIPBOARD_FORMAT_LIST_REQ_SENT state. This message contains a sequence number that is incremented when sending the ClipboardFormatListReq message. Under normal circumstances, no race condition occurs and a ClipboardFormatListRsp message is sent back to acknowledge the new sequence number and owner. The list contained in the request is used to expose clipboard data formats offered by the owner, and any of these formats can be requested by an application on the remote system.
When an application requests one of the data formats from the clipboard owner, a ClipboardFormatDataReq message is sent with the sequence number, and format id from the list, the state is changed to CLIPBOARD_FORMAT_DATA_REQ_SENT. Under normal circumstances, there is no change of clipboard ownership during that time, and the data is returned in the ClipboardFormatDataRsp message. A timer should be used to timeout if no response is sent fast enough from the other system, and abort the sequence if it takes too long.
Now, for the special cases:
If we receive ClipboardFormatListReq in the CLIPBOARD_FORMAT_LIST_REQ_SENT state, it means both systems are trying to gain ownership at the same time. Only one owner should be selected, in this case, we can keep it simple an elect the client as the default winner. With the client as the default owner, the server should respond to the client with ClipboardFormatListRsp consider the client as the new owner.
If we receive ClipboardFormatDataReq in the CLIPBOARD_FORMAT_LIST_REQ_SENT state, it means we have just received a request for data from the previous list of data formats, since we have just sent a request to become the new owner with a new list of data formats. We can respond with a failure right away, and sequence numbers will not match.
Etc, etc. The main issue I was trying to solve here is fast recovery from such states, with going into a loop of retrying until it works. The main issue with immediate retrial is that it is going to happen with timing likely to cause new race conditions. We can solve the issue by expecting such inconsistent states as long as we can move back to proper protocol states when detecting them. The other part of the problem is with electing a "winner" that will have its request accepted without resending new messages. A default winner can be elected by default, such as the client or the server, or some sort of random voting system can be implemented with a default favorite to break ties.
I am making a game using a client-server model with UDP. Here's how I have implemented it so far:
All packets include a sequence number and a flag specifying whether they are "important".
Important message types require acknowledgement and will be re-sent after a delay if no acknowledgement is received.
Most message types are "unimportant" - that is, they do not require an acknowledgement, and if such a message is received with an older sequence number than the latest, it is dropped.
My dilemma is this: if an "important" message arrives twice, I only want to process it once. But how will I know that I have already received it, without keeping an ever-expanding list in memory?
Ideas
Just remember the last X "important" messages received - the likelihood of receiving a VERY old message is slim (not ideal as it's not 100% reliable).
Use TCP for "important" messages (not ideal due to the complications and overhead involved in managing 2 protocols simultaneously).
Have a separate sequence number for "important" messages and ensure that these are always received in order, so only the most recent message needs to be remembered (I'm leaning towards this).
Any other ideas?
Use #3. The fact that you are ACK-ing the important messages provides the mechanism to ensure they are received in order, i.e. don't ACK an out-of-sequence one, and just remember the sequence number of the last one you ACK-ed.
Have a separate sequence number for "important" messages (starting from zero), and the following variables:
a variable min_recv, indicating that you received all "important" messages from 0 to min_recv (excluded);
a list of the "important" sequence number that you already have received.
At any time (e.g. after receiving another "important" message), you store its sequence number in the list; then you can check if you can compact the list:
while list contains `min_recv`:
remove `min_recv` from list
increment min_recv
In this way you consume minimal memory, because even when you receive out-of-order important messages (and the size of the list will start to grow), eventually you will receive the missing message, because it will be retransmitted if lost, and you will empty the list.
I want to send five potentiometer values (bytes) through ZigBee using Arduino. I stored the potentiometer values in five different variables (bytes) and used
Serial.print(pot1);
Serial.print(pot2);
.
.
Serial.print(pot5);
The problem is that, when I am varying the potentiometer values, in the receiver section it is coming as 49, 55, 57, etc. (always changing), instead of some constant value from 0-255. (I am using Serial.read() function five times.)
How can I fix this problem?
q
Well, when you are varying the potentiometers it stands to reason that you will be reading varying values as the change is happening AND your program is reading and sending the changing values.
What I understand from your question is that you only want a ONE value sent after a change. I interpret this to mean that as you are changing the potentiometers, the values should not be sent, but in stead the final value should be sent.
What is the final value? Only you can decide, but one way to define it is: If the last value read one second ago is the same value read now, then send that value. The timing can be anything you decide, 1 second, 1/2 second etc.
I would like to help you with code, but you submitted very little code, and I am not sure I understood what you meant. Please clarify your requirements.