Are there many disadvantages/advantages to having Kamailio and Asterisk on the same Server
Thank you,
For small deployments with low number of subscribers and active calls it makes sense to save resources and run both Kamailio and Asterisk on the same server.
Otherwise, running them on separate servers is the common out there, allowing to dimension each server based on processing needs. Usually, Kamailio needs fewer resources because it handles the signalling channel only. Asterisk may have to do heavy audio processing such as transcoding, audio conferencing or complex IVR menus, so it needs more powerful systems, sometimes with dedicated hardware.
Related
I am struggling to describe simply what the IP Application layer actually “is”. Some of my terminology may be “not quite right”, so I am happy to be corrected on my terminology as well. Is the application layer a “thing”? Or is it more “conceptual” than that? Is the Application layer on a particular node solely that collection of protocols (such as FTP, POP3, HTTP) that an application needs to adhere to if it is to successfully communicate with another remote application?
Conversely, if I write a program that does not strictly conform to an application protocol (say FTP) then there is nothing in the local “application layer” that will “stop” my attempt to communicate to the remote end using an invalid command? Whereas, if the remote end does conform to the application protocol, then it will reject or ignore my invalid communication attempt?
Or again, I could define my own protocol (not necessary as I guess all scenarios are already covered), and as long as my protocol was “robust and consistent” I could use it to communicate between two remote applications and everything would work? Or, is the Application layer a “thing” separate from the protocols?
The application layer is everything that's inside the application - that is, not within the IP stack (which covers network and transport layers).
If you want your application to communicate with an FTP server it needs to be able to speak FTP in order to work. If you write your own client-server protocol you can do whatever you want.
The network layers are there to make your life easier and to make applications compatible with each other. You can use or not use whatever you seem fit.
“An application needs to communicate with another application on a remote system. Any communication can be thought of as the exchange of messages and data between two partners. There are rules (protocols) that define for an application: what commands are available, the sequence that they can be exchanged between partners and any limitations on the data exchanged. For example: communication with an HTTP server uses commands: GET, POST and PUT (and others), whereas communication with an SMTP (mail) server uses: MAIL, RCPT and DATA, and similarly for other protocols. There are different protocols depending on the nature of the communication e.g. text message transfer, file transfer or video streaming. Any commands that are sent by either partner that do not obey those protocol rules is either: not delivered to, ignored or rejected by the remote application. Nothing prohibits application partners using their “own” communication protocol – for example Skype developed an uses its own protocol. However, there are standard protocols that handle most conceivable communication needs, so developing a new protocol may be unnecessary. If an application uses a “private” protocol its communication will be limited to remote applications that support the same private protocol. In addition to protocols, in a practical, real-world, system there are programming libraries (Programming interfaces) that enable the end-user application to request and participate in this communication. It is the end-user application’s responsibility to interact (send and receive data and parameters) with the (local programming) interface and the comms system’s responsibility to process those requests and deliver the data. In simplistic terms, one data transmission starts at one application and ends at another. However, IP provides other applications, such as DNS, that are used to set up connections, but the operation of these is not visible at the end-user application level. In summary, the collection of protocols and the programming interfaces available and used by an end-user application is the application layer on a system.”
Can anyone tell me how a server offer concurrent TCP services to multiple clients
while using only a single thread?
Thanks very much !!
It uses a physical thread provided by the system, but it is able to create as many virtual treads as the system allows/supports(usually one thread per request), assuming a single threaded system, which is pretty uncommon on today servers configurations, and a X86 arch, each thread would get a bit of processor time on each clock run enabling the server to work with multiple requests at "virtually" the same time.
Regards.
I would like to write an application to manage files, directories and processes on hundreds of remote PCs. There are measurement programs running on these machines, which are currently managed manually using TightVNC / RealVNC. Since the number of machines is large (and increasing) there is a need for automatic management. The plan is that our operators would get a scriptable client application, from which they could send queries and commands to server applications running on each remote PC.
For the communication, I would like to use a TCP-based custom protocol, but it is administratively complicated and would take very long to open pinholes in every firewall in the way. Fortunately, there is a program with a built-in TinyWeb-based custom web server running on every remote PC, and port 80 is opened in every firewall. These web servers serve requests coming from a central server, by starting a CGI program, which loads and sends back parts of the log files of measurement programs.
So the plan is to write a CGI program, and communicate with it from the clients through HTTP (using GET and POST). Although (most of) the remote PCs are inside the corporate intranet, they are scattered all over the country, I would like to secure the communication. It would not be wise to send commands, which manipulate files and processes, in plain text. Unfortunately the program which contains the web server cannot be touched, so I cannot simply prepare it for HTTPS. I can only implement the security layer in the client and in the CGI program. What should I do?
I have read all similar questions in SO, but I am still not sure what to do in this specific situation. Thank you for your help.
There are several webshells but as far as I can see ( http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mressl/webshell/features.html ) they run on the top of an existing SSL/TLS layer.
There is also S-HTTP.
There are several ways of authenticating to an server (username/passwort) in a protected way, without SSL. http://www.switchonthecode.com/tutorials/secure-authentication-without-ssl-using-javascript . But these solutions are focused only on sending a username/password to the server.
Would it be possible to implement something like message-level security in SOAP/WS-Security? I realise this might be a bit heavy duty and complicated to implement, but at least it is
standardised
definitely secure
possibly supported by some libraries or frameworks you could use
suitable for HTTP
I am to design a server that needs to serve millions of clients that are simultaneously connected with the server via TCP.
The data traffic between the server and the clients will be sparse, so bandwidth issues can be ignored.
One important requirement is that whenever the server needs to send data to any client it should use the existing TCP connection instead of opening a new connection toward the client (because the client may be behind a firewall).
Does anybody know how to do this, and what hardware/software is needed (at the least cost)?
What operating systems are you considering for this?
If using a Windows OS and using something later than Vista then you shouldn't have a problem with many thousands of connections on a single machine. I've run tests (here: http://www.lenholgate.com/blog/2005/11/windows-tcpip-server-performance.html) with a low spec Windows Server 2003 machine and easily achieved more than 70,000 active TCP connections. Some of the resource limits that affect the number of connections possible have been lifted considerably on Vista (see here: http://www.lenholgate.com/blog/2005/11/windows-tcpip-server-performance.html) and so you could probably achieve your goal with a small cluster of machines. I don't know what you'd need in front of those to route the connections.
Windows provides a facility called I/O Completion Ports (see: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc302334.aspx) which allow you to service many thousands of concurrent connections with very few threads (I was running tests yesterday with 5000 connections saturating a link to a server with 2 threads to process the I/O...). Thus the basic architecture is very scalable.
If you want to run some tests then I have some freely available tools on my blog that allow you to thrash a simple echo server using many thousands of connections (1) and (2) and some free code which you could use to get you started (3)
The second part of your question, from your comments, is more tricky. If the client's IP address keeps changing and there's nothing between you and them that is providing NAT to give you a consistent IP address then their connections will, no doubt, be terminated and need to be re-established. If the clients detect this connection tear down when their IP address changes then they can reconnect to the server, if they can't then I would suggest that the clients need to poll the server every so often so that they can detect the connection loss and reconnect. There's nothing the server can do here as it can't predict the new IP address and it will discover that the old connection has failed when it tries to send data.
And remember, your problems are only just beginning once you get your system to scale to this level...
This problem is related to the so-called C10K problem. The C10K page lists a large number of good resources for addressing the problems you will encounter when you try to allow thousands of clients to connect to the same server.
I've come across the APE Project
a while back. It seems like a dream come true. They can support up to 100k concurrent clients on a single node. Spread them across 10 or 20 nodes, and you can serve millions. Perfect for RESTful applications. Might want to look deeper for any shared namespace. One drawback is that this is a standalone server, as in supplementary to a web server. This server is of course Open Source, so any cost is hardware/ISP related.
You cannot use UDP. If the client sends a request and you don't reply immediately, a router is going to forget the reverse route in 30 seconds or less, so your server will never be able to reply to the client.
TCP is the only option, and it, too, will give you headaches. Most routers are going to forget the route and/or drop the connection after a few minutes, so your client/server code is going to have to send "keep alives" fairly often.
I recommend setting up a "sniffer", to see how the phone companies are staying in touch with your smartphone for their "push" technology. Copy whatever they're doing, because that stuff works!
As Greg mentioned, the problem you are describing is C10K (or rather "C1M" in your case )
I recently made a simple TCP echo server on linux that scales very well with the number of sessions (only tested up to 200.000 though), by using the epoll queue. On BSD, you have something similar called kqueue.
You can check out the code if you want to. Hope this helps and good luck!
EDIT: As noted in the comments below, my original assertion that there is a 64K limit based on the number of ports is incorrect, however there is a 32K limit on the number of socket handles, so my suggested design is valid.
With a typical TCP/IP server design, you're limited in the number of simultaneous open connections you can have. The server has one listening port, and when a client connects to it the server makes an accept call, and that creates a new socket on a random port for the rest of the connection.
To handle more than 64K simultaneous connections I think you need to use UDP instead. You only need one port for the server to listen on, and you need to manage the connections using a 32-bit client ID in the packet data instead of having a separate port for each client. The 32-bit client ID could be the client's IP address, and the client can listen on a known UDP port for messages coming back from the server. That port would be the only one that needs to be open on the firewall.
With this approach, your only limitation is how quickly you can handle and respond to UDP messages. With millions of clients, even sparse traffic could give you large spikes, and if you don't read the packets fast enough your input queue will fill up and you'll start dropping packets. The C10K page Greg points to will give you strategies for that.
I'm developing a multi-player game and I know nothing about how to connect from one client to another via a server. Where do I start? Are there any whizzy open source projects which provide the communication framework into which I can drop my message data or do I have to write a load of complicated multi-threaded sockety code? Does the picture change at all if teh clients are running on phones?
I am language agnostic, although ideally I would have a Flash or Qt front end and a Java server, but that may be being a bit greedy.
I have spent a few hours googling, but the whole topic is new to me and I'm a bit lost. I'd appreciate help of any kind - including how to tag this question.
If latency isn't a huge issue, you could just implement a few web services to do message passing. This would not be a slow as you might think, and is easy to implement across languages. The downside is the client has to poll the server to get updates. so you could be looking at a few hundred ms to get from one client to another.
You can also use the built in flex messaging interface. There are provisions there to allow client to client interactions.
Typically game engines send UDP packets because of latency. The fact is that TCP is just not fast enough and reliability is less of a concern than speed is.
Web services would compound the latency issues inherent in TCP due to additional overhead. Further, they would eat up memory depending on number of expected players. Finally, they have a large amount of payload overhead that you just don't need (xml anyone?).
There are several ways to go about this. One way is centralized messaging (client/server). This means that you would have a java server listening for udp packets from the clients. It would then rebroadcast them to any of the relevant users.
A second way is decentralized (peer to peer). A client registers with the server to state what game / world it's in. From that it gets a list of other clients in that world. The server maintains that list and notifies the other clients of people who join / drop out.
From that point forward clients broadcast udp packets directly to the other users.
If you look for communication framework with high performance try look at ACE C++ framework (it has Java bindings).
Official web-site is: http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/ACE-overview.html
You could also look into Flash Media Interactive Server, or if you want a Java implementation, Wowsa or Red5. Those use AMF and provide native functionality for ShareObjects including synching of the ShareObjects among connected clients.
Those aren't peer to peer though (yet, it's coming soon I hear). They use centralized messaging managed by the server.
Good luck