The problem is the inability of my Lua server to accept multiple request simultaneously.
I attempted to make each client message be processed in its on coroutine, but this seems to have failed.
while true do
local client = server:accept()
coroutine.resume(coroutine.create( function()
GiveMessage( client )
end ) )
end
This code seems to not actually accept more than one client message at the same time. What is wrong with this method? Thank you for helping.
You will not be able to create true simultaneous handling with coroutines only — coroutines are for cooperative multitasking. Only one coroutine is executed at the same time.
The code that you've wrote is no different from calling GiveMessage() in a loop directly. You need to write a coroutine dispatcher and find a sensible reason to yield from GiveMessage() for that approach to work.
There are least three solutions, depending on the specifics of your task:
Spawn several forks of your server, handle operations in coroutines in each fork. Control coroutines either with Copas or with lua-ev or with home-grown dispatcher, nothing wrong with that. I recommend this way.
Use Lua states instead of coroutines, keep a pool of states, pool of worker OS threads and a queue of tasks. Execute each task in a free Lua state with a free worker thread. Requires some low-level coding and is messier.
Look for existing more specialized solutions — there are several, but to advice on that I need to know better what kind of server you're writing.
Whatever you choose, avoid using single Lua state from several threads at the same time. (It is possible, with the right amount of coding, but a bad idea.)
AFAIK coroutines don't play nice with luaSocket out-of-the-box. But there is Copas you can use.
Related
I am working on designing a new system that will take a an array of hashes of car data and then use this data to call a separate API that returns a Boolean, after which I will return to the original caller the car model and either true or false.
The system needs to be callable from other applications so I am looking into GRPC to solve the problem. My question revolves around how to implement this solution in GRPC and whether or not something like RabbitMQ would be better?
Would it make sense to make a bidirectional streaming GRPC solution where the client streams in the list of cars and then on the servers end I spawn off say a delayed job for each request on the server? And then when each delayed job finishes processing I return that value to the original caller in a stream?
Is this an elegant solution or are there better ways to achieve my goal? Thanks.
The streaming system of gRPC is typically designed for asynchronous communication, so it should fit your usage case neatly.
The general design philosophy in this case is to consider each individual message sent in the stream as independent. Basically, make sure your proto message contains all the information it needs to be parsed and processed by your application without needing any context from previous calls.
This may appear as a silly question, but I am really confused about the terminology of the ZeroMQ regarding synchronous sockets like REQ and REP.
By my understanding a synchronous communication occurs when a client sends a message an then it blocks, until the response arrives. If ZeroMQ implemented a synchronous communication then only a .send() method would be enough for a synchronous socket.
I think that synchronous sockets terminology of ZeroMQ refers only to the inability of sending more messages until the response of the last message arrives, but the "sender" can still continue its processing ( doing more stuff ) asynchronously.
Is this true?
In that case, is there any straightforward way to implement a synchronous communication using ZeroMQ?
EDIT: Synchronous communication makes sense when I want to invoke a method in a remote process (like RPC). If I want to execute a series of commands in a remote process and each command needs the result of the previous one to do its job then asynchronous communication is not the best option.
To use ZMQ for implementing a synchronous framework, you can very nearly do it using just ZMQ; you can set the high water mark to 1. Unfortunately that's not quite it; what you want is an out going queue length of 0. Even more unfortunately, setting the high water mark to 0 is interpretted by ZMQ as infinity...
So the only option is to implement a synchronous transfer protocol on top of ZMQ. That's not very difficult to do. The conversation between the two ends will be something like "can I send?", "yes you can send now", "ok here it is", "ok I have received it" (both ends return to caller) (or at least the programatic version of that). This sets up what is called an execution rendevous - both ends know that they both reached a certain point of execution.
Technically speaking what you're doing is taking ZeroMQ (Actor Model) and turning it into something more like Communicating Sequential Processes.
RPC
Having said all that, from your edit I think you might like to consider Cap'n Proto. This is a C++ serialisation technology that has a neat RPC trick. If the return from one RPC call is the input to another, you can chain those all together somehow in advance (see here).
Let's start with a first stepforget everything you know about sockets.
ZeroMQ is more a concept of thinking about distributed-systems ( multi-agent like ) and how to design a software, with a use of such a smart signalling / messaging framework.
This is the core aim of the ZeroMQ, to allow designers remain thinking in the application domain and let all the low level dirty work to be operated actually without much of the designers' need to care of.
If have just recently started with ZeroMQ, one may enjoy a short read about a ZeroMQ global view first, before discussing details.
Having read and understood the concept of the ZeroMQ hierarchy, it is way simpler to start on details:
given a local Context() instance is a data-pumping engine and having a REQ/REP Scalable Formal Communications Archetype pattern in mind, the story is now actually a story about a network of distributed-Finite-State-Automata.
local process, operating just one side of the distributed REQ/REP communication archetype has zero power to influence the remote process to receive or not the message that was passed from the local process over to the ZeroMQ delivery services towards the indended recipient(s) in a fair belief. The less the local process can influence the remote process' intent to respond at all or not, so welcome to the realms of distributed multi-agent games.
Both the REQ and the REP formal behaviour has to meet its both the { local | distributed-mode }-expected sort of behaviour -- REQ asks first, REP answers then, so as to keep the contracted promise. The point is, that this behaviour is distributed and split among a pair of nodes, plus there are cases, when network incidents may throw the distributed-FSA into an unsalvageable mutual deadlock ( one may find more posts on this here zeromq quite often ).
So, your local-side REQ code imperatively .send()-s and has no obligation to stop without doing anything reasonable until REP-side .recv( zmq.NOBLOCK )-s or not ( no one has any kind of warranty a remote node exists at all, similarly, one has to set oneselves ready to anticipate and handle all cases, where a remote side will never respond, so many "new" challenges appear from the nature of a distributed multi-agent ecosystem ).
There are smart ways to handle this new breed of distributed chaos and uncertainties, using, best using .poll() and non-blocking forms of either the .send() and .recv()-methods, as these let user-code to remain capable of handling all expected and un-expected events in due time and fashion.
One may also operate rather many co-existent ZeroMQ connections, so as to prioritise and specialise each and any form of the multi-agents' interactions in a distributed system design, even for designing in fault-resilience and similar high-level robustness concept, where asynchronous nature of each of the interactions avoids a need of any sort of coordination or synchronisation with a remote ( possibly even not yet present ) agent, which is principally an autonomous entity, having it's own domain of control, so again, being principally asynchronous to what local-side agent might "expect", the less "influence" in any other form but by an attempt to send "there" a message "telegram".
So yes,ZeroMQ is asynchronous brokerless signalling / messaging framework.
For (almost) synchronous communications, one may take steps and measures to trim down the ( principally distributed ) asynchronous control loops -- best update your post with an MCVE example and details about what are your particular goals for being achieved.
I study golang scheduler in linux. I think golang using multi-thread to implement goroutine , when some goroutine is blocked in I/O(just like reading a file), other thread go on processing another goroutine . But when there is lots of I/O,I don't think thread is enough, how golang deal with it ?
I read a article http://morsmachine.dk/netpoller , it says “Go gets around this problem by using the asynchronous interfaces that the OS provides, but blocking the goroutines that are performing I/O.” .
Is it like the aio_read ? It is said that there is lots of bugs with the asynchronous interfaces . And I don’t find it in the source code or I just miss it.
As we know , I understand we can use epoll to do asynchronous io for pipes and socket, but epoll can’t be used to reading or writing of regular file. And nodejs use libeio to do this for regular file. I want to know how golang do it in runtime.
Go doesn't use anything special for file I/O yet. It just creates a new thread (so that there are always GOMAXPROCS threads available for goroutines) and blocks on the operation. I think there already was some discussion going on about using AIO on the mailing list, but there were many problems at that time. The golang-nuts mailing list is probably a better place for this kind of questions.
Non-blocking sends/recvs return immediately in MPI and the operation is completed in the background. The only way I see that happening is that the current process/thread invokes/creates another process/thread and loads an image of the send/recv code into that and itself returns. Then this new process/thread completes this operation and sets a flag somewhere which the Wait/Test returns. Am I correct ?
There are two ways that progress can happen:
In a separate thread. This is usually an option in most MPI implementations (usually at configure/compile time). In this version, as you speculated, the MPI implementation has another thread that runs a separate progress engine. That thread manages all of the MPI messages and sending/receiving data. This way works well if you're not using all of the cores on your machine as it makes progress in the background without adding overhead to your other MPI calls.
Inside other MPI calls. This is the more common way of doing things and is the default for most implementations I believe. In this version, non-blocking calls are started when you initiate the call (MPI_I<something>) and are essentially added to an internal queue. Nothing (probably) happens on that call until you make another call to MPI later that actually does some blocking communication (or waits for the completion of previous non-blocking calls). When you enter that future MPI call, in addition to doing whatever you asked it to do, it will run the progress engine (the same thing that's running in a thread in version #1). Depending on what the MPI call that's supposed to be happening is doing, the progress engine may run for a while or may just run through once. For instance, if you called MPI_WAIT on an MPI_IRECV, you'll stay inside the progress engine until you receive the message that you're waiting for. If you are just doing an MPI_TEST, it might just cycle through the progress engine once and then jump back out.
More exotic methods. As Jeff mentions in his post, there are more exotic methods that depend on the hardware on which you're running. You may have a NIC that will do some magic for you in terms of moving your messages in the background or some other way to speed up your MPI calls. In general, these are very specific to the implementation and hardware on which you're running, so if you want to know more about them, you'll need to be more specific in your question.
All of this is specific to your implementation, but most of them work in some way similar to this.
Are you asking, if a separate thread for message processing is the only solution for non-blocking operations?
If so, the answer is no. I even think, many setups use a different strategy. Usually progress of the message processing is done during all MPI-Calls. I'd recommend you to have a look into this Blog entry by Jeff Squyres.
See the answer by Wesley Bland for a more complete answer.
I'm fairly new to Akka and writing concurrent applications and I'm wondering what's a good way to implement an actor that would wait for a redis list and once an item becomes available it will process it, or send it to a different actor to process?
Would using the blocking function BRPOPLPUSH be better, or would a scheduler that will ask the actor to poll redis every second be a better way?
Also, on a normal system, how many of these actors can I spawn concurrently without consuming all the resource the system has to offer? How does one decide how many of each Actor type should an actor system be able to handle on the system its running on?
As a rule of thumb you should never block inside receive. Each actor should rely only on CPU and never wait, sleep or block on I/O. When these conditions are met you can create even millions of actors working concurrently. Each actor is suppose to have 600-650 bytes memory footprint (see: Concurrency, Scalability & Fault-tolerance 2.0 with Akka Actors & STM).
Back to your main question. Unfortunately there is no official Redis client "compatible" with Akka philosophy, that is, completely asynchronous. What you need is a client that instead of blocking will return you a Future object of some sort and allow you to register callback when results are available. There are such clients e.g. for Perl and node.js.
However I found fyrie-redis independent project which you might find useful. If you are bound to synchronous client, the best you can do is either:
poll Redis periodically without blocking and inform some actor by sending a message to with a Redis reply or
block inside an actor and understand the consequences
See also
Redis client library recommendations for use from Scala
BRPOPLPUSH with block for long time (up to the timeout you specify), so I would favour a Scheduler instead which still blocks, but for a shorter amount of time every second or so.
Whichever way you go, because you are blocking, you should read this section of the Akka docs which describes methods for working with blocking libraries.
Do you you have control over the code that is inserting the item into redis? If so you could get that code to send your akka code a message (maybe over ActiveMQ using the akka camel support) to notify it when the item has been inserted into redis. This will be a more event driven way of working and prevent you from having to poll, or block for super long periods of time.