I want to understand the theoretical background of multi-user system (how it works). I found we can implement the idea using two methods.
1.Multi-seat
2.Thin client
What are the differences between them.
And should we install OS in thin client while using in multi-user system. I found thin-clients may not have hard disks.
Please help me out..
The basic idea is one of resource utilisation. For example; for a typical office scenario you might buy 10 computers for 10 users at $2000 each, and while they're being used they'll spend most of their time waiting for keyboard or mouse and only actually use about 10% of the CPU, etc. It's wasteful.
For multi-seat; you'd throw some more video cards into the computer and get a USB hub and plug more keyboards in. You might end up with 2 computers at $3000 each with 5 people per computer (or $6000 total cost instead of $20000); and if its done right the users won't really notice the difference. Of course it's a little hard to cram 5 video cards into a single machine (and hard to get 5 users close enough for everything to reach), so this has some practical limitations.
For thin client; you shift the video and keyboard into a little box (the thin client) that communicates with a server over the network. The server runs the applications, etc; and the thin clients don't need to do much processing or anything (and don't need hard drives) and can be really cheap. It will need more networking bandwidth (because the network is now carrying video traffic for all the users); but you can shift the expensive (and often noisy) server into a back room; and because it's centralised it makes maintenance (backups, upgrades, etc) easier. In this case you might spend $4000 on a server and $1000 on 10 thin clients and $1000 on networking (or $6000 total cost instead of the original $20000).
Related
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
If Chris and Pat want to exchange a text message, they send and receive via their network providers, which charge them for a connection.
If Chris and Pat are both located in New York City, and there are enough wireless devices between Chris and Pat all close enough to each other to form a continuous chain, is it possible for all those devices to be programmed to cooperatively forward packets amongst each other, bypassing the need for network providers?
It would seem the "address" of each device would have to include current geographic coordinates, and devices would have to report their movements frequently enough so routing attempts could still find them, but the speed and capacity of devices nowadays could handle that, right?
Would such a network be viable? Does it already exist or has it been attempted? Is there some kind of inherent programming problem that is difficult to overcome?
There are a few interesting things here:
Reachability. At least you need to use a technology that can do ad-hoc and peer-to-peer networking. Of those technologies only bluetooth, NFC and WiFi are more or less often implemented. Of those again only wifi currently may have the strength to connect to devices in other houses or to the street, but even there typical ranges are 30-60m (and that's for APs, it might be lower for UEs).
Mobility. ANY short-range wireless communication protocol has difficulties with fast-moving devices. It's simple math, suppose your coverage is 50m in diameter, if you move at about 20km/h or 5.5m/s, you have less than 10s to actually detect, connect and send data while passing this link. Oh, but then we did not consider receiving traffic, you actually have to let all devices know that for the next 10s you want to receive data now via this access network. To give an example, wifi connectivity times with decent authentication (which you need for something like this) alone takes a few seconds. 10s might be doable, but as soon we talk about cars, trains, ... it's becoming almost impossible with current technology. But then again, if you can't connect to those, what are the odds you will cross some huge boulevards with your limited reachability?
Hop to hop delays. You need a lot of those. We can fairly assume that you need at least a hop each 20-30m, let's average at 40 hops/km. So to send a packet over lets say 5km you'd need 200 hops. Each hop needs to take in a packet (L2 processing), route it (L3 processing) and send it out again (L2 processing). While mobile devices are relatively powerful these days I wouldn't assume they can handle that in the microseconds routers do. Next to that in a wireless network you have to wait for a transmission slot, which can actually take in the order of ms (each hop!). So all in all, odds are huge this would be a terribly slow network.
Loss. Well, this depends a bit on the wireless protocol, either it has its own reliable delivery protocol (which will make the previous point worse) or it doesn't. In that last case, suppose your wireless link has about .1% loss, or 99.9% no-loss, this would actually end up with an 18.1% loss rate for the 200 hops considered previously ( (1-0.999**200)*100) This is nearly impossible to work with in day-to-day communications.
Routing. lets say you need a few millions of devices and thus routes. For traditional routing this usually takes some very heavy multicore routers with loads of processing power. Let's just say mobile devices (today) can't cut that yet. A purely geographically based routing mechanism might work, but I can't personally think of any (even theoretical) system for this that works today. You still have to distribute those routes, deal with (VERY) frequent route updates, avoid routing loops, and so on. So even with that I'd guess you'd hit the same scale issues as with for example OSPF. But all-in-all I think this is something that mobile devices will be able to handle somewhere in the not-so-far future, we're just talking about computing capacity here.
There are some other points why such a network is very hard today, but these are the major ones I know of. Is it impossible? No, of course not, but I just wanted to show why I think it is almost impossible with the current technologies and would require some very significant improvements, not just building the network.
If everyone has a device with sufficient receive/process/send capabilities, then backbones (ISP's) aren't really necessary. Start at mesh networking to find the huge web of implementations, devices, projects, etc., that have already been in development. The early arpanet was essentially true peer-to-peer, but the number of net nodes grew faster than the nodes' individual capabilities, hence the growth of backbones and those damn fees everyone's paying to phone and cable companies.
Eventually someone will realize there are a million teenagers in NYC that would be happy to text and email each other for free. They'll create a 99-cent download to let everyone turn their phones and laptops and discarded devices into routers and repeaters, and it'll go viral.
Someday household rooftop repeaters might become as common as TV antennas used to be.
Please check: Wireless sensor network
A wireless sensor network (WSN) of spatially distributed autonomous sensors to monitor physical or environmental conditions, such as temperature, sound, pressure, etc. and to cooperatively pass their data through the network to a main location
I'm putting together a small 4 node cluster on which I'm going to be running storm. I have a few questions about the networking side of things. First off all the computers are equipped with gigabit ethernet however the hub that I currently have only goes up to 100 megabits. Should I upgrade my hub? Or will the performance gain be negligible? Second I read on a few sites that a hub is not the best piece of hardware to use that a switch would be better for my purposes. I'm trying to use Storm to have one machine pull data down from the internet and then pass it off to the others for processing. Would a switch or hub be more useful? Thanks for all your help folks.
A Router can allow for serious networking capabilities, it's also oftentimes overkill. With only 4 machines you're probably much more likely to want a Gigabit Switch instead: sold in stores oftentimes under the name Gigabit Router -- which is technically a lie as it's usually a Bridge (Hub or Switch, Networking has a lot of overloaded names). Router are many times more expensive than Switches if you have difficulty identifying between the two from just marketing names. A hub on the other hand is oftentimes a dumb Switch with less capabilities (and sometimes speed penalties in high data flow situations).
The question as to if you need to upgrade is dependent on where you bottleneck is. Is the data you're sending large? Do your cluster computer spend a lot of time computing instead of receiving data? First determine if your networking speed will be your bottleneck, then decide if you should upgrade that bottleneck. If you're worried about network speed but aren't 100% sure it will be a bottleneck, a cheap 1 Gigabit Switch won't cost you much and will almost certainly meet you're needs.
Also note that if you're data needs to first come over the internet (isn't generated on your side of the network) you're bottleneck will almost certainly be your internet connection before your local network.
So essentially, profile your problem before making a choice.
It appears that cheap consumer routers are fairly easy to crash: hanging around in various backup/sync software forums, I see this mentioned from time to time. Developers seem to be putting a fair amount of effort into making sure they don't crash the routers.
What are the "do"s and "don't"s for my network-heavy application to ensure that it doesn't cause issues with badly designed routers? Especially one that intends to connect to a number of peers?
IMO trying to workaround bad hardware is the road to nowhere, because every router fails in its own remarkable way :).
What you can do in the network-heavy application is assume that network is not stable media (routers can crash, etc) and design application network operations accordingly.
For instance, provide reconnect logic, connection timeouts, some sort of state caching to allow users work with app even if network connectivity is gone.
Concerning faulty routers - they usually crash because of great number of simultaneous connections (e.g. downloading via bittorrent or other p2p protocol). So, maintaining minimum number of connections can help.
I am looking for networking designs and tricks specific to games. I know about a few problems and I have some partial solutions to some of them but there can be problems I can't see yet. I think there is no definite answer to this but I will accept an answer I really like. I can think of 4 categories of problems.
Bad network
The messages sent by the clients take some time to reach the server. The server can't just process them FCFS because that is unfair against players with higher latency. A partial solution for this would be timestamps on the messages but you need 2 things for that:
Be able to trust the clients clock. (I think this is impossible.)
Constant latencies you can measure. What can you do about variable latency?
A lot of games use UDP which means messages can be lost. In that case they try to estimate the game state based on the information they already have. How do you know if the estimated state is correct or not after the connection is working again?
In MMO games the server handles a large amount of clients. What is the best way for distributing the load? Based on location in game? Bind a groups of clients to servers? Can you avoid sending everything through the server?
Players leaving
I have seen 2 different behaviours when this happens. In most FPS games if the player who hosted the game (I guess he is the server) leaves the others can't play. In most RTS games if any player leaves the others can continue playing without him. How is it possible without dedicated server? Does everyone know the full state? Are they transfering the role of the server somehow?
Access to information
The next problem can be solved by a dedicated server but I am curious if it can be done without one. In a lot of games the players should not know the full state of the game. Fog-of-war in RTS and walls in FPS are good examples. However, they need to know if an action is valid or not. (Eg. can you shoot me from there or are you on the other side of the map.) In this case clients need to validate changes to an unknown state. This sounds like something that can be solved with clever use of cryptographic primitives. Any ideas?
Cheating
Some of the above problems are easy in a trusted client environment but that can not be assumed. Are there solutions which work for example in a 80% normal user - 20% cheater environment? Can you really make an anti-cheat software that works (and does not require ridiculous things like kernel modules)?
I did read this questions and some of the answers https://stackoverflow.com/questions/901592/best-game-network-programming-articles-and-books but other answers link to unavailable/restricted content. This is a platform/OS independent question but solutions for specific platforms/OSs are welcome as well.
Thinking cryptography will solve this kind of problem is a very common and very bad mistake: the client itself of course have to be able to decrypt it, so it is completely pointless. You are not adding security, you're just adding obscurity (and that will be cracked).
Cheating is too game specific. There are some kind of games where it can't be totally eliminated (aimbots in FPS), and some where if you didn't screw up will not be possible at all (server-based turn games).
In general network problems like those are deeply related to prediction which is a very complicated subject at best and is very well explained in the famous Valve article about it.
The server can't just process them FCFS because that is unfair against players with higher latency.
Yes it can. Trying to guess exactly how much latency someone has is no more fair as latency varies.
In that case they try to estimate the game state based on the information they already have. How do you know if the estimated state is correct or not after the connection is working again?
The server doesn't have to guess at all - it knows the state. The client only has to guess while the connection is down - when it's back up, it will be sent the new state.
In MMO games the server handles a large amount of clients. What is the best way for distributing the load? Based on location in game?
There's no "best way". Geographical partitioning works fairly well, however.
Can you avoid sending everything through the server?
Only for untrusted communications, which generally are so low on bandwidth that there's no point.
In most RTS games if any player leaves the others can continue playing without him. How is it possible without dedicated server? Does everyone know the full state?
Many RTS games maintain the full state simultaneously across all machines.
Some of the above problems are easy in a trusted client environment but that can not be assumed.
Most games open to the public need to assume a 100% cheater environment.
Bad network
Players with high latency should buy a new modem. I don't think its a good idea to add even more latency because one person in the game got a bad connection. Or if you mean minor latency differences, who cares? You will only make things slower and complicated if you refuse to FCFS.
Cheating: aimbots and similar
Can you really make an anti-cheat software that works? No, you can not. You can't know if they are running your program or another program that acts like yours.
Cheating: access to information
If you have a secure connection with a dedicated server you can trust, then cheating, like seeing more state than allowed, should be impossible.
There are a few games where cryptography can prevent cheating. Card games like poker, where every player gets a chance to 'shuffle the deck'. Details on wikipedia : Mental Poker.
With a RTS or FPS you could, in theory, encrypt your part of the game state. Then send it to everyone and only send decryption keys for the parts they are allowed to see or when they are allowed to see it. However, I doubt that in 2010 we can do this in real time.
For example, if I want to verify, that you could indeed be at location B. Then I need to know where you came from and when you were there. But if you've told me that before, I knew something I was not allowed to know. If you tell me afterwards, you can tell me anything you want me to believe. You could have told me before, encrypted, and give me the decryption key when I need to verify it. That would mean, you'll have to encrypt every move you make with a different encryption key. Ouch.
If your not implementing a poker site, cheating won't be your biggest problem anyway.
With a lot of people accessing games on mobile devices, a "bad network" can occur when a player is in an area of poor reception or they're connected to a slow-wifi connection. So it's not just a problem of people connecting in sparsely populated areas. With mobile clients "bad networks" can occur very very often and it's usually EXTREMELY hard to diagnose.
UDP results in packet loss, but even games that use TCP and HTTP based can experience problems where the client & server communication slows to a crawl while packets are verified to have been sent. With communication UDP compensation for packet loss USUALLY depends on what the packets contain. If you're talking about motion data, usually if packets aren't received, the server interpolates the previous trajectory and makes a position change. Usually it's custom to the game how this is handled, which is why people often avoid UDP unless their game type requires it. Often to handle high network latency, problems games will automatically degrade the amount of features available to the users so that they can still interact with the game without causing the user to get kicked or experience too many broken features.
Optimally you want to have a logging tool like Loggly available that can help you find errors related to bad connection and latency and show you the conditions on the clients and server at the time they happened, this visibility lets you diagnose common problems users experience and develop strategies to address them.
Players leaving
Most games these days have dedicated servers, so this issue is mostly moot. However, sometimes yes, the server can be changed to another client.
Cheating
It's extremely hard to anticipate how players will cheat and create a cheat-proof system no one can hack. These days, a lot of cheat detection strategies are based on heuristic analysis of logging and behavioral analytics information data to spot abnormalities when they happen and flag it for review. You definitely should try to cheat-proof as much as is reasonable, but you also really need an early detection system that can spot new flaws people are exploiting.
If you're trying to build an application that needs to have the highest possible sustained network bandwidth, for multiple and repetitive file transfers (not for streaming media), will having 2 or more NICs be beneficial?
I think your answer will depend on your server and network architecture, and unfortunately may change as they change.
What you are essentially doing is trying to remove the 'current' bottleneck in your overall application or design which you have presumably identified as your current NIC (if you haven't actually confirmed this then I would stop and check this in case something else restricts throughput before you reach your NIC limit).
Some general points on this type of performance optimization:
It is worth checking if you have the option to upgrade the current NIC to a higher bandwidth interface - this may be a simpler solution for you if it avoids having to add load balancing hardware/software/configuration to your application.
As pointed out above you need to make sure all the other elements in your network can handle this increased traffic - i.e. that you are not simply going to have congestion in your internet connection or in one of your routers
Similarly, it is worth checking what the next bottle neck will be once you have made this change, if the traffic continues to increase. If adding a new NIC only gives you 5% more throughput before you need a new server anyway, then it may be cheaper to look for a new server right away with better IO from new.
the profile of your traffic and how it is predicted to evolve may influence your decision. If you have a regular daily peak which only exceeds your load slightly then a simple fix may serve you for a long time. If you have steadily growing traffic then a more fundamental look at your system architecture will probably be necessary.
In line with the last point above, it may be worth looking at the various Cloud offerings to see if any meet your requirements at a reasonable cost, possibly even as temporary resource every day just to get you through your peak traffic times.
And finally you should be aware that as soon as you settle on a solution and get it up and running someone else in your organization will change or upgrade the application to introduce a new and unexpected bottle-neck...
It can be beneficial, but it won't necessarily be that way "out of the box".
You need to make sure that both NICs actually get used - by separating your clients on different network segments, by using round robin DNS, by using channel bonding, by using a load balancer, etc. And on top of that you need to make sure your network infrastructure actually has sufficient bandwidth to allow more throughput.
But the general principle is sound - you have less network bandwidth available on your server than disk I/O, so the more network bandwidth you add the better, up until it reaches or exceeds your disk I/O, then it doesn't help you anymore.
Potentially yes. In practice, it also depends on the network fabric, and whether or not network I/O is a bottleneck for your application(s).