I want multiple IoT devices (Say 50) communicating to a server directly asynchronously via TCP. Assume all of them have a heartbeat pulse every 30 seconds and may drop off and reconnect at variable times.
Can anyone advice me the best way to make sure no data is dropped or blocked when multiple devices are communicating simultaneously?
TCP by itself ensures no data loss during the communication between a client and a server. It does that by the use of sequence numbers and ACK messages.
Technically, before the actual data transfer happens, a TCP connection is created between the client (which can be an IoT device, or any other device) and the server. Then, the data is split into multiple packets and sent over the network through that connection. All TCP-related mechanisms like flow-control, error-detection, congestion-detection, and many others, take place once the data starts to flow.
The wiki page for TCP is a pretty good start if you want to learn more about how it works.
Apart from that, as long as your server has enough capacity to support the flow of requests coming from the devices, then everything should work (at least in theory).
I don't think you are asking the right question. There is no way to make sure that no data is dropped or blocked. Networks do not always work (that is why the word work is in network, to convince you otherwise ).
The right question is: how do I make my distributed system as available and reliable as possible? The answer involves viewing interruption and congestion as part of the normal operation, and build your software appropriately.
There is a timeless usenix/acm/? paper from the late 70s early 80s that invigorated the notion that end-to-end protocols are much more effective then over-featured middle to middle protocols; and most guarantees of middle to middle amount to best effort. If you rely upon those guarantees, you are bound to fail. Sorry, cannot find the reference right now, but it is widely cited.
Related
Background:
I am using the RxAndroidBle library and have a requirement to quickly (as possible) connect to multiple devices at a time and start communicating. I used the RxBluetoothKit for iOS, and have started to use RxAndroidBle on my Pixel 2. This had worked as expected and I could establish connections to 6-8 devices, as required, in a few hundred milliseconds. However, broadening my testing to phones such as the Samsung S8 and Nexus 6P, it seems that establishing a single connection can now take upwards of 5-6 seconds instead of 50-60 millis. I will assume for the moment that that disparity is within the vendor-specific BT implementations. Ultimately, this means that connecting to, e.g., 5 devices now takes 30 seconds instead of < 1 second.
Question:
What I understand from the documentation and other questions asked, RxAndroidBle queues all scanning, connecting, and communication requests and executes them serially to be safe and maintain stability based on the variety of Bluetooth implementations in the Android ecosystem. However, is there currently a way to execute the requests (namely, connecting) in parallel to accept this risk and potentially cut my total time to establish multiple connections down to whichever device takes the longest to connect?
And side question: are there any ideas to diagnose what could possibly be taking 5 seconds to establish a connection with a device? Or do we simply need to accept that some phones will take that long in some instances?
However, is there currently a way to execute the requests (namely, connecting) in parallel to accept this risk and potentially cut my total time to establish multiple connections down to whichever device takes the longest to connect?
Yes. You may try to establish connections using autoConnect=true which would prevent locking the queue for longer than few milliseconds. The last connection should be started with autoConnect=false to kick off a scan. Some stack implementations are handling this quite OK but your mileage may vary.
And side question: are there any ideas to diagnose what could possibly be taking 5 seconds to establish a connection with a device?
You can check the Bluetooth HCI snoop log. Also you may try using a BLE sniffer to check what is actually happening "on-air" (e.g. an nRF51 Development Kit).
Or do we simply need to accept that some phones will take that long in some instances?
This is also an option since usually there is little one can do about connecting time. From my experience BLE stack/firmware implementations are wildly different from each other.
I don't have much experience with network programming, but an interesting problem came up that requires it. The server will be transmitting multiple streams of different types of data to other machines. Each machine should be able choose which of the streams (one or more) it will like to receive. The whole setup is confined to the local network only. Initially, there will be only two clients, but I would like to design a scalable approach, if possible.
The existing server code, which is streaming only a single stream, is using TCP streaming socket for doing so. However, from some reading on the subject, I am not sure if this approach will scale to multiple streams and multiple clients well. The reason is: wouldn't two clients, who want to receive the same stream but connect via different TCP sockets, result in wastage of bandwidth? Especially compared to UDP, which allows to multicast.
Due to my inexperience, I am relying on better informed people out there to advise me: considering that i do want the stream to be reliable, would it be worth it to start from the scratch with UDP, and implement reliability into it, than to keep using TCP? Or, will this be better solved by designing an appropriate network structure? I'd be happy to provide more details if needed. Thanks.
UPDATE: I am looking at PGM and emcaster for reliable multicasting at the moment. Must have C# implementations at server side, and python implementations at client side.
Since you want a scalable program, then UDP would be a better choice, because it does not go the extra length to verify that the data has been received, thus making the process of sending data faster.
I am building a chat application, where each keystroke presses of the user are sent to the server. At the server, a recommendation engine which is based on nlp generates recommendations based on the context of the typed message at that point of time.
For large scale deployment, which connection type would be preferable between TCP and UDP. UDP is fast but unreliable, whereas TCP, being reliable may be slow in real-time. For example:A user types the words "Hey, lets watch" and quickly clears the text-box,the recommendation of a movie should not be generated after he clears the text-box.
If the server has a recommendation, it should be guaranteed to deliver the recommendation back to the client.
The aim is to get real-time recommendation with low latency. Which type would be more preferable?
TCP and UDP are almost identical if the size of the data being sent at a time is less than the maximum payload of a single frame.
In that case UDP will be more "reliable" in terms of real-time behaviour since it is more within your hands how the data is processed. The downside of course is that you have to care of certain things yourself which TCP will give you for free.
With TCP on the other hand the TCP layer of the protocol stack can make a mess out of your real-time requirements and you don't even have a chance doing anything about it. Ever thought about re-transmitts (about +200ms transmittion time), nagle algorithm (small packets are delayed for up to 200ms), delayed TCP ACKs (may cause re-transmitts on some stacks)? And there is a lot more in stock for you if you have strickt real-tme requirements.
I'm working on a project which has a 20ms timeframe and transmitts a lot of data in that time using TCP. Even though we have a star architecture and real-time operating systems it is a hell to get this working reliable (well lots of the effects are due to one of our used Ethernet chips the smsc91c111).
Concluding there is no "best way" doing things like that since neither UDP nor TCP are real-time protocols. But since it is fairly easy to switch between them I recommend simply to test it and choose the protocol which works best.
I am working on a project which requires sensor information to be obtained from multiple embedded devices so that it may be used by a master machine. The master currently has classes which contain backing fields for each sensor. Data is continuously read on each sensor and a packet is then written and sent to the master to update that sensor's backing field. I have little experience with TCP/UDP so I am not sure which protocol would work better with this setup.
I am currently using TCP to transfer the data because I am worried about data on our rotary encoders being received out of order. Since my experience with this topic is limited, I am not sure if this is this a valid concern.
Does anyone with experience in this area know any reasons that I should prefer one approach over the other?
How much you care about getting know a packet was delivered?
How much you care about getting know a delivered packet was 100% correct?
How much you care about the order of packet delivery?
How much you care about the peer is currently connected?
If the answers were "I care a lot", you'd prefer to keep on using TCP because it ensure all four points.
The counterpart is that UDP could be more lightweight and fast to handle if you manage small packets.
Anyway, it's not so easy choose this or that. Just try.
And read this brief explanation: http://www.cyberciti.biz/faq/key-differences-between-tcp-and-udp-protocols/
I'm no expert but it seems this might be relevant:
Do you can about losing data?
If so, use TCP. Error recovery is automatic.
If not, use UDP. Lost packets are not re-sent. I also believe ordering here is not guaranteed.
I am writing an application where the client side will be uploading data to the server through a wireless link.
The connection should be very reliable.The link is expected to break many times and there will be many clients connected to the server.
I am confused whether to use TCP or reliable UDP.
Please share your thoughts.
Thanks.
RUDP is not, of course, a formal standard, and there's no telling if you will find existing implementations you can use. Given a choice between rolling this from scratch and just re-making TCP connections, I'd chose TCP.
To be safe, I would go with TCP just because it's a reliable, standard protocol. RUDP has the disadvantage of not being an established standard (although it's been mentioned in several IETF discussions).
Good luck with your project!
It's likely that both your TCP and RUDP links would be broken by your environment, so the fact that you're using RUDP is unlikely to help there; there will likely be times when no datagrams can get through...
What you actually need to make sure of is that a) you can handle the number of connected clients, b) your application protocol can detect reasonably quickly when you've lost connectivity with a client (or server) and c) you can handle the required reconnection and maintenance of cross connection session state for clients.
As long as you deal with b) and c) it doesn't really matter if the connection keeps being broken. Make sure you design your application protocol so that you can get things done in short batches; so if you're uploading files, make sure that you're sending small blocks and that the application protocol can resume a transfer that was broken half way through; you don't want to get 99% of the way through a 2gb transfer and lose the connection and have to start again.
For this to work your server needs some kind of client session state cache where you can keep the logical state of a client's connection beyond the life of the connection itself. Design from the start to expect a given session to include multiple separate connections. The session state should possibly have some kind of timeout so if the client goes away for along time it doesn't continue to consume resources on the server but, to be honest, it may simply be a case of saving the state off to disk after a while.
In summary, I don't think the choice of transport matters and I'd go with TCP at least to start with. What will really matter is being able to manage your client's session state on the server and deal with the fact that clients will connect and disconnect regularly.
If you aren't sure, odds are that you should use TCP. For one thing, it's certain to be part of the network stack for anything supporting IP. "Reliable UDP" is rarely supported out of the box, so you'll have some extra support work for your clients.