My job is to write a distributed client/server application with some concurrent tasks. So i decided to use akka.net for the concurrency issues. To implement the ipc between server and client akka remote is used. For some reasons there may run more than one client of the same type on a workstation. So i configured these clients for dynamic assignment of a tcp port. This worked fine for sending messages to the server.
My problem is to push some information to the clients. To accomplish this task an actor on the client exist. Now the server creates a reference for this actor. Therefor it needs the port the client is listening on . My idea is to send the tcp port the client uses to the server in some sort of connection procedure using a actor on the server.
After searching for some hours I didn't find any hint where to find the dynamically assigned tcp port. So how would the client get the assigned tcp port?
Ok, I could use akka.cluster. But using akka.cluster is breaking a fly on the wheel, I think. And if it solves my issue reamins to be seen.
Two suggestions, assuming that it is your client that makes the first contact with the server.
I'd have the server keep track of which clients are connected. I'd probably have a heartbeat message that gets sent once every few seconds from each client system. This way you can store an IActorRef for each alive client and send messages back without the need for finding the port. IActorRefs are preferable wherever possible for location transparency.
If you actually need to explicitly find the port, you may be able to extract it from the Path property of the IActorRef of one of the actors on the client system.
Thanks to patricks suggestions my issue is solved.
The solution is to extract the needed information from the senders path available while executing the hello message. With this information the server is able to maintain a list of all connected clients and theire network address.
Thanks a lot # patrick.
Regards Gregor
Related
Currently we receive on port 9020 from a client. That client uses port switching on their end and sometimes we wind up with multiple "Established" connections on the one port - all with different remote ports. We can manually end each established connection and our job will connect again after a few seconds. We can also run ENDTCPCNN for each remote port listed. We are looking for a way to programmatically see if there are multiple remote ports connected to the local port and if so end the established connections (while leaving the Listener running). Does anyone know of a way to get the information?
To answer your question, assuming you are on a supported version of the OS, take a look at the QSYS2.NETSTAT_INFO SQL view.
select local_port, remote_port, protocol, tcp_state, idle_time, network_connection_type
from qsys2.netstat_info
where local_port = 9020;
Otherwise, you'd need to use the List Network Connections and Retrieve Network Connection Data APIs yourself.
But are you sure you need to do this? Sounds like the client is leaving the connection open for re-use. That's a good thing for performance. You server code should be automatically timing out and closing idle connections.
as stated above, im trying to checking connection between server and client, without using ping, or some packet that will send every second.
i already try ping method, but this method will cause flooding, and i already try tcp method that act like icmp, the tcp packet will send tcp packet every second, to make sure the connection betweet sever and client still on, but this doesnt solve the flooding problem.
do you guys have any idea how to do this, without causing flooding?
all i need is server only send like 3 way handshake, and the connection built, and when the client off, something will trigger the server, and tell that server that, this client in particular are offline.
in simple, how to monitor client and server connectoin without sending multiple packet?
thank you
Say some link halfway between the client and server stops passing traffic. It may or may not still be possible for the client and server to communicate, depending on whether there are alternate links. But there is no way to tell whether or not that communication is possible without doing something active. There is no passive way to tell whether or not a link failure has made a connection usable or unusable.
There is, in general, no easier or more efficient way to tell whether or not communication is possible than attempting that communication and seeing whether or not it works.
I have a configuration with the following server/clients :
One server with two bound sockets, a REP and a ROUTER
A client (we will call it a worker) that stays connected to the ROUTER socket
Another (real) client that connects on the REP socket.
I want the server to be able to tell the real client to connect (directly or somehow through the server) to a websocket, opened on the worker client. But it seems, I cannot retrieve the worker's IP-address from a ZeroMQ socket.
How could I achieve this, without some dirty IP-address retrieve hacks?
How could I achieve this, without some dirty IP-address retrieve hacks?
The best would be to use an explicitly communicated IP-address dialogue / handshaking between the server and the worker which would take place upon their setup / initialisation, in which the worker adviced these configuration details to server, upon having been asked to provide a such answer.
Given that, the "new"-real-client .connect()-s it's REQ onto the server's REP, and asks the server about where to go next, the server thus can answer this and the "new"-real-client will get received this way a legitimate IP-address:port# and any additionally needed details for any additional TCP/IP-L3 service establishment and use.
That simple :o) distributed-system
Design-side Epilogue:Because there are some further, design-side implications, hardwired inside of each type of the ZeroMQ sockets' Access-Point, it might be found more appropriate to serve a separate REP-AccessPoint on the server side, so as not to subordinate each "new"-real-client to become dependent upon a presence of events outside of the domains of control of both the server and such "new"-real-client, but to rather allow both such REQ/REP-endpoints to enjoy the independence of anything but their temporally (semi-)private details (re-)negotiation(s).
I am trying to create a Web Server of my own and there are several questions about working of Web servers we are using today. Questions are:
After receiving a HTTP request from a client through port 80, does server respond using same port 80?
If yes then while sending a large file say a pic in MB's, webserver will be unable to receive requests from other clients?
Is a computer port duplex or simplex? (Can it send and receive at the same time)?
If another port on server side is used to send response to client, then (if TCP is used, which is generally used), again 3-way handshaking will be done which will be overhead...
http://beej.us/guide/bgnet/output/html/singlepage/bgnet.html here is a good guide on what's going on with webservers, although it's in c but the concepts are all there. This will explain the whole client server relationship as well as some implementation details.
I'll just give a high level on what's going on:
Usually what happens is when your server gets a new request that comes in it creates a fork that will process it, that way you are not bogged down by each request, when the request comes in the child process is handed a new file to write to(again this is all implementation details).
So really you have one server waiting for requests and for each request it received it spawns a child to process to deal with this request. I'm sure there are much easier languages to implement this stuff than c(I had to do both a c and java server serving to either one in my past) but c really gets you to understand the things that are going on and I'm betting that is what you are looking for here
Now there are a couple of things to think about:
how you want the webserver to work. The example explains the parent child process.
Do you want to use tcp/UDP there are differences in the way to payload gets delivered.
You don't have to connect on port 80. that's just the default for web.
Hopefully the guide will help you.
Yes. The server sends the response using the TCP connection established by the client, so it also responds using the same port. The server can handle connections from multiple clients using the same port because TCP connections are identified by (local-ip, local-port, remote-ip, remote-port), so the server can even handle multiple connections from same client provided that the source ports are different.
There are different techniques you can use to be able to serve multiple clients at the same time. These include
using multiple processes or threads: when one is busy serving a client the others can serve other clients.
using events: the server listens for events from the OS: when it can write a block of data to a connection it writes it, when a new client connects it accepts the connection, ...
Frequently both approaches are be combined.
A TCP connection is duplex: you can send and receive at the same time. The HTTP protocol is based on a simple request-response model though: at any given time only one party is "talking."
I have computers connected in a wifi netwrok. One of them serves as a root(lets call it server), and is directly or indirectly connected to all other computers(lets call them clients). I want to send some information from root to all nodes(information is different for each node).
Is there a way to do this without running any program on the client side(similar to PING) ?
Or the only possible way is by using sockets over client and server?
Is there a way to do this without running any program on the client side(similar to PING)?
Yes, provided that you don't care that the clients will never do anything with the information.
Seriously, without something on the client listening for and doing something with the data you send from the server, what do you expect?
Ping does not actually send any data to the client. It just roundtrips a packet.
To receive the information you need some kind of service running on the client. Sockets are needed. For minimal communication (not reliable) use UDP and for more reliable use TCP.