What is more efficient in Akka.net, talking to actor selections or interacting with an IActorRef being passed in a message?
The best answer would be to benchmark it for your case, as this may depend on multiple conditions (like local/remote communication). When we're talking about communication within the same process, IActorRef should always be faster. In remote communication the difference may be smaller, but stil in favor of IActorRef.
That being said, it's important to get the difference between two:
When underlying actors stops (don't confuse stop with restart) its IActorRef is no longer valid. If it will be created some time later, your old IActorRef doesn't necessary have to point to it. This is one of the reasons, why you may Context.Watch(actorRef) to be notified when your actor dies.
Actor selection doesn't point directly to an actor's mailbox, therefore usually it's slower. The actual recipient's mailbox is resolved when you're trying to send a message through it. It doesn't suffer invalidation issues, but cannot be watched either. It also may point to more than one actor (using wildcards), so your message may be delivered to multiple actors somewhere in the actor hierarchy.
I think perhaps you're coming at this in the wrong way. I don't know for sure which is 'more efficient' in terms of performance. (Although #Horusiath gives some great guidance on the differences between the two)
The thing is that using ActorSelection is a bit of an anti-pattern in itself and its generally recommended that you use IActorRefs. See point #3 on this blog: Petabridge: The Top 7 Mistakes Newbies Make with Akka.NET
In short;
when using Actor Refs, the location of the actor is transparent. The actor you're attempting to interact with could be anywhere in your cluster and it wouldn't matter when using an IActorRef.
That being said, they also have a nice little blog on when ActorSelection might be useful... Petabridge: When Should I Use Actor Selection?
I'd recommend giving both of those links a read through if you're weighing up which to use in your code. Hope this helps!
Related
We have a number of processes that rely on interactions between two people/groups. I am trying to figure out the best way to illustrate this in BPMN.
CONSIDER:
Using the example of a pizza order, I call a pizzeria to order, an order-taker answers the phone and then we discuss my order. I am trying to accurately capture the "we discuss the order" portion of the process. Here is how I envision the diagram playing out. I call, they answer, then there's branching for a simultaneous exchange, which converges at the end of the call and my order is finished. Is this illustrated correctly? or are there better ways to show that two different entities communicating with each other at the same time to accomplish a task?
The moment you want to show interaction in greater detail than high level bird view, you typically run into troubles when remaining within the paradigm of using "one pool with several lanes". In such a case you need to draw a so called "collaboration diagram", which means you make use of several pools and hence several process definitions interacting with each other by means of message exchange. I give you an example here:
You may use those envelope symbols attached to the message flows, but you don't need to.
The big advantage of that approach is that you can now show that those processes are dependent on each other, yes, but each participant also wants to remain in drivers seat of his/her own process, e.g. by deciding what to do if the other side doesn't provide the desired answer, doesn't do anything within a reasonable time and so on. Furthermore you can look at that diagram from both perspectives and people will actually see "their own process" - and not something mixed with the concerns of others involved.
For that same reason BPMN also offers the concept of "collapsed pools" to be able to look just at the communication from one side and treat the internal details of the other side as a kind of "black box":
I am not a senior programmer but I have been deploying applications for a while and devloped small complete systems.
I am starting to hear about queueing systems such as RabbitMQ. May be, I never developed any systems that had to use a queueing system. But, I am worried if I am not using it because I have no idea what to do with this. I have read RabbitMQ tutorial on their site but I am not sure why I would use this for. I am not sure if any of those cannot be achieved by conventional programming with no additional component and regular databases or similar.
Can someone please explain why I would use a queueing system with a small example. I mean not a hello world example, but a a practical scenario.
Thanks a lot for your time
RM
One of the key uses of middleware like message queues is to be able to send data between non homogenous systems. The messages themselves can be many things. Strings are the easiest to be understood by different languages on different systems but are often less useful for transferring more meaningful data. As a result JSON and XML are very popular for the messages. These are just structured strings that can be converted into objects in the language of choice at the consumer end.
Additional useful features:
In some MQ systems like RabbitMQ (not true in all MQ systems) is that the client handles the communication side of things very nicely.
The messages can be asynchronous. If the consumer goes down, the messages will remain until the consumer is back online.
The MQ system can be setup to varying degrees of message durability. They can be removed from the queue once read or remain until the are acknowledged. They can be persistent so even if the MQ systems goes down message will not be lost.
Here goes with some possibly contrived examples. A Java program on a local system wants to send a message to a system on the connected through the internet. The local system has a server connected to the internet. Everything is blocked coming from the internet except a connection to the MQ. The Java program can publish the message to the MQ with out needing access to the internet. The message sits on the queue until the external system picks it up. The Java program publishes a message, lets say XML, and the consumer could be a Perl program. As long as they have some way of understanding the XML with a predefined way of serialization and deserialization it will be fine.
MQ systems tend to work best in "fire-and-forget" scenarios. If an event happens and others need to be notified of it, but the source system has no need for feedback from the other systems, then MQ might be a good fit.
If you understand the pros and cons of MQ and still don't understand why it would be a good fit for a particular system, then it probably isn't. I've seen systems where MQ was used but not needed, and the result was not pretty.
Most of the scenarios I've seen where it's worked out well is integration between unrelated systems (usually out-of-the-box type system). Let's say you have one system that takes orders, and a different system that fills the orders and ships them. In that scenario, the order system can use a MQ to notify the fulfillment system of the order, but the order system has no interest in waiting until the fulfillment system receives the order. So it puts a message in a queue keep going.
This is a very simplified answer, but it gives the general ideas.
Let's think about this in terms of telephone vs. email. Pretend for a minute that email does not exist. To get work done, you must phone everyone. When you communicate with someone via telephone, you need to have them at their desk in order to reach them (assume they are in a factory and can't hear their cell phone ring) :-) If the person you wish to reach isn't at the desk, you are stuck waiting until they return your call (or far more likely, you call them back later). It's the same with you - you don't have any work to do until someone calls you up. If multiple people call at once, you don't know about it because you can only handle one person at a time.
However, if we have email, it is possible for you to "queue" your requests with someone else, to answer (but more likely ignore) at their convenience. If they do ignore your email, you can always re-send it. You don't have to wait for them to be at the desk, and they don't have to wait until you are off the phone. The workload evens out and things run much more smoothly. As an added bonus, you can forward messages that you don't want to deal with to your peons.
In systems engineering, we use the term "closely coupled" to define programs (or parts of programs) that work like the telephone scenario above. They depend very closely upon each other, often sharing implementations among various parts of the program. In these programs, data is processed in serial order, one at a time. These systems are typically easy to build, but there are a few important drawbacks to consider: (1) changing any part of the program likely will cause cascading changes throughout the code, and this introduces bugs; (2) the system is not very scalable, and typically must be scrapped and rebuilt as needs grow; (3) all parts of the system must be functioning simultaneously or the whole system will not work.
Basically, closely-coupled programs are good if the program is very simple or if there is some specialized reason to use a closely-coupled program.
In the real world, things are much more complex. Programs cannot be that simple, and it becomes a nightmare to develop enterprise applications in a closely-coupled manner. Therefore, we use the term "loosely-coupled" to define large systems that are composed of many smaller pieces. The pieces have very well-defined boundaries and functions, so that changing of the system may be accomplished more easily. It is the essence of object-oriented design. Message queues (like RabbitMQ) allow email-like communication to take place among various programs and parts of programs, thus making workflow much more like it would be with people. Adding extra capacity then becomes a simple matter of starting up and additional computer wherever you need it.
Obviously, this is a gross simplification, but I think it conveys the general idea. Building applications that use message queuing enables you to deploy massively scalable applications leveraging cloud service providers. Here is an article that talks about designing for the cloud:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/silverlining/archive/2011/08/23/designing-and-building-applications-for-the-cloud.aspx
I've read about how a hard job in programming is writing code "at the right level of abstraction". Although abstraction is generally hiding details behind a layer, is writing something at the right level of abstraction basically getting the methodss to implement decision correct? For example, if I am going to write a class to represent a car, I will provide properties for the wheels etc, but if I am asked to write a class for a car with no wheels, I will not provide the wheels and thus no method to "drive" the car. Is this what is meant by getting the abstraction right?
Thanks
Not Quite,
Providing the right level of abstraction is knowing how much of the information from the lower levels to pass up through your level.
Suppose you were writing a high level HTTP library. Perhaps you would provide a Get() method, a Head() method, a Post() method etcetera, but you wouldn't need to provide access to the underlying Sockets because you are abstracting that detail away from the user.
And below that Socket that you are using, there are layers of abstraction that you don't need to deal with. (You only access an abstraction one layer below you, beyond that it is the job of that layer to deal with the layer below it, and so forth).
For instance, you don't care about the sliding window flow control protocol because TCP is abstracting away those details.
--
If you are coding at too high of an abstraction layer for the purposes you are trying to achieve, you will run into multiple implementation details. When you are fighting with the library for control, it is an indication that perhaps you are working at too high a level.
Conversely, if you are coding at too low a level of abstraction you will get lost in the implementation details. Going back to my HTTP example, if you just want to run a Get request against the server and you are implementing a TCP handshake in your code, then perhaps you either want to try to use a library or abstract out your TCP code into a library and interface with it through that.
--
In one class that I took on the subject, the teacher had an interesting method of explaining abstractions. He had us think of them simply as a 'point of view' or 'perspective' on an object or a scenario.
The details that are important from one perspective aren't important at all from another perspective.
He put a book on a table and assigned roles to students such as "Reader", "Book Seller", "Author", "Librarian", or "Book Shipper" and asked us what details about the book we thought were important to us in that role. Based on the roll assigned to a person, their answers varied widely.
This represents an abstraction. Only needing those details that are important to you, and letting all other details be handled elsewhere (or simply fall to the wayside).
I don't think that's it.
To me, abstraction is synonymous with generalization. The more abstract something is, the more the author is trying to think about a problem in such a way that it's easier to extend and apply to new problems.
In general, greater abstraction requires more effort to develop and to understand. If you're a developer, and you're given a highly abstract framework to work with, you'll be forced to think in terms of the framework rather than using concepts that your common sense might suggest.
So, as in your example, a Car would be a very low level of abstraction. A RollingVehicle might be a higher one, and Transport might be the most abstract of all.
The right choice depends on how broadly you wish to apply your classes and how easily understood you'd like them to be.
I think one dangerous aspect of abstraction is its ability to erase or hide the reality or the design it represents. You should always maintain a reasonable distance between what you represent and the representation. By "reasonable" I mean easily understandable by an external developer how hasn't been coding on this specific project.
Joel Spolsky stated it quite right talking about the dangers of "architecture astronauts":
When great thinkers think about problems, they start to see patterns. They look at the problem of people sending each other word-processor files, and then they look at the problem of people sending each other spreadsheets, and they realize that there's a general pattern: sending files. That's one level of abstraction already. Then they go up one more level: people send files, but web browsers also "send" requests for web pages. And when you think about it, calling a method on an object is like sending a message to an object! It's the same thing again! Those are all sending operations, so our clever thinker invents a new, higher, broader abstraction called messaging, but now it's getting really vague and nobody really knows what they're talking about any more. Blah.
as opposed to writing your own library.
We're working on a project here that will be a self-dividing server pool, if one section grows too heavy, the manager would divide it and put it on another machine as a separate process. It would also alert all connected clients this affects to connect to the new server.
I am curious about using ZeroMQ for inter-server and inter-process communication. My partner would prefer to roll his own. I'm looking to the community to answer this question.
I'm a fairly novice programmer myself and just learned about messaging queues. As i've googled and read, it seems everyone is using messaging queues for all sorts of things, but why? What makes them better than writing your own library? Why are they so common and why are there so many?
what makes them better than writing your own library?
When rolling out the first version of your app, probably nothing: your needs are well defined and you will develop a messaging system that will fit your needs: small feature list, small source code etc.
Those tools are very useful after the first release, when you actually have to extend your application and add more features to it.
Let me give you a few use cases:
your app will have to talk to a big endian machine (sparc/powerpc) from a little endian machine (x86, intel/amd). Your messaging system had some endian ordering assumption: go and fix it
you designed your app so it is not a binary protocol/messaging system and now it is very slow because you spend most of your time parsing it (the number of messages increased and parsing became a bottleneck): adapt it so it can transport binary/fixed encoding
at the beginning you had 3 machine inside a lan, no noticeable delays everything gets to every machine. your client/boss/pointy-haired-devil-boss shows up and tell you that you will install the app on WAN you do not manage - and then you start having connection failures, bad latency etc. you need to store message and retry sending them later on: go back to the code and plug this stuff in (and enjoy)
messages sent need to have replies, but not all of them: you send some parameters in and expect a spreadsheet as a result instead of just sending and acknowledges, go back to code and plug this stuff in (and enjoy.)
some messages are critical and there reception/sending needs proper backup/persistence/. Why you ask ? auditing purposes
And many other use cases that I forgot ...
You can implement it yourself, but do not spend much time doing so: you will probably replace it later on anyway.
That's very much like asking: why use a database when you can write your own?
The answer is that using a tool that has been around for a while and is well understood in lots of different use cases, pays off more and more over time and as your requirements evolve. This is especially true if more than one developer is involved in a project. Do you want to become support staff for a queueing system if you change to a new project? Using a tool prevents that from happening. It becomes someone else's problem.
Case in point: persistence. Writing a tool to store one message on disk is easy. Writing a persistor that scales and performs well and stably, in many different use cases, and is manageable, and cheap to support, is hard. If you want to see someone complaining about how hard it is then look at this: http://www.lshift.net/blog/2009/12/07/rabbitmq-at-the-skills-matter-functional-programming-exchange
Anyway, I hope this helps. By all means write your own tool. Many many people have done so. Whatever solves your problem, is good.
I'm considering using ZeroMQ myself - hence I stumbled across this question.
Let's assume for the moment that you have the ability to implement a message queuing system that meets all of your requirements. Why would you adopt ZeroMQ (or other third party library) over the roll-your-own approach? Simple - cost.
Let's assume for a moment that ZeroMQ already meets all of your requirements. All that needs to be done is integrating it into your build, read some doco and then start using it. That's got to be far less effort than rolling your own. Plus, the maintenance burden has been shifted to another company. Since ZeroMQ is free, it's like you've just grown your development team to include (part of) the ZeroMQ team.
If you ran a Software Development business, then I think that you would balance the cost/risk of using third party libraries against rolling your own, and in this case, using ZeroMQ would win hands down.
Perhaps you (or rather, your partner) suffer, as so many developers do, from the "Not Invented Here" syndrome? If so, adjust your attitude and reassess the use of ZeroMQ. Personally, I much prefer the benefits of Proudly Found Elsewhere attitude. I'm hoping I can proud of finding ZeroMQ... time will tell.
EDIT: I came across this video from the ZeroMQ developers that talks about why you should use ZeroMQ.
what makes them better than writing your own library?
Message queuing systems are transactional, which is conceptually easy to use as a client, but hard to get right as an implementor, especially considering persistent queues. You might think you can get away with writing a quick messaging library, but without transactions and persistence, you'd not have the full benefits of a messaging system.
Persistence in this context means that the messaging middleware keeps unhandled messages in permanent storage (on disk) in case the server goes down; after a restart, the messages can be handled and no retransmit is necessary (the sender does not even know there was a problem). Transactional means that you can read messages from different queues and write messages to different queues in a transactional manner, meaning that either all reads and writes succeed or (if one or more fail) none succeeds. This is not really much different from the transactionality known from interfacing with databases and has the same benefits (it simplifies error handling; without transactions, you would have to assure that each individual read/write succeeds, and if one or more fail, you have to roll back those changes that did succeed).
Before writing your own library, read the 0MQ Guide here: http://zguide.zeromq.org/page:all
Chances are that you will either decide to install RabbitMQ, or else you will make your library on top of ZeroMQ since they have already done all the hard parts.
If you have a little time give it a try and roll out your own implemntation! The learnings of this excercise will convince you about the wisdom of using an already tested library.
One of our next projects is supposed to be a MS Windows based game (written in C#, with a winform GUI and an integrated DirectX display-control) for a customer who wants to give away prizes to the best players. This project is meant to run for a couple of years, with championships, ladders, tournaments, player vs. player-action and so on.
One of the main concerns here is cheating, as a player would benefit dramatically if he was able to - for instance - let a custom made bot play the game for him (more in terms of strategy-decisions than in terms of playing many hours).
So my question is: what technical possibilites do we have to detect bot activity? We can of course track the number of hours played, analyze strategies to detect anomalies and so on, but as far as this question is concerned, I would be more interested in knowing details like
how to detect if another application makes periodical screenshots?
how to detect if another application scans our process memory?
what are good ways to determine whether user input (mouse movement, keyboard input) is human-generated and not automated?
is it possible to detect if another application requests informations about controls in our application (position of controls etc)?
what other ways exist in which a cheater could gather informations about the current game state, feed those to a bot and send the determined actions back to the client?
Your feedback is highly appreciated!
I wrote d2botnet, a .net diablo 2 automation engine a while back, and something you can add to your list of things to watch out for are malformed /invalid/forged packets. I assume this game will communicate over TCP. Packet sniffing and forging are usually the first way games (online anyways) are automated. I know blizzard would detect malformed packets, somehting i tried to stay away from doing in d2botnet.
So make sure you detect invalid packets. Encrypt them. Hash them. do somethign to make sure they are valid. If you think about it, if someone can know exactly what every packet means that is sent back and forth they dont even need to run the client software, which then makes any process based detection a moot point. So you can also add in some sort of packet based challenge response that your cleint must know how to respond to.
Just an idea what if the 'cheater' runs your software in a virtual machine (like vmware) and makes screenshots of that window? I doubt you can defend against that.
You obviously can't defend against the 'analog gap', e.g. the cheater's system makes external screenshots with a high quality camera - I guess it's only a theoretical issue.
Maybe you should investigate chess sites. There is a lot of money in chess, they don't like bots either - maybe they have come up with a solution already.
The best protection against automation is to not have tasks that require grinding.
That being said, the best way to detect automation is to actively engage the user and require periodic CAPTCHA-like tests (except without the image and so forth). I'd recommend utilizing a database of several thousand simple one-off questions that get posed to the user every so often.
However, based on your question, I'd say your best bet is to not implement the anti-automation features in C#. You stand very little chance of detecting well-written hacks/bots from within managed code, especially when all the hacker has to do is simply go into ring0 to avoid detection via any standard method. I'd recommend a Warden-like approach (download-able module that you can update whenever you feel like) combined with a Kernel-Mode Driver that hooks all of the windows API functions and watches them for "inappropriate" calls. Note, however, that you're going to run into a lot of false positives, so you need to not base your banning system on your automated data. Always have a human look over it before banning.
A common method of listening to keyboard and mouse input in an application is setting a windows hook using SetWindowsHookEx.
Vendors usually try to protect their software during installation so that hacker won't automate and crack/find a serial for their application.
Google the term: "Key Loggers"...
Here's an article that describes the problem and methods to prevent it.
I have no deeper understanding on how PunkBuster and such softwar works, but this is the way I'd go:
Iintercept calls to the API functions that handle the memory stuff like ReadProcessMemory, WriteProcessMemory and so on.
You'd detect if your process is involved in the call, log it, and trampoline the call back to the original function.
This should work for the screenshot taking too, but you might want to intercept the BitBlt function.
Here's a basic tutorial concerning the function interception:
Intercepting System API Calls
You should look into what goes into Punkbuster, Valve Anti-Cheat, and some other anti-cheat stuff for some pointers.
Edit: What I mean is, look into how they do it; how they detect that stuff.
I don't know the technical details, but Intenet Chess Club's BlitzIn program seems to have integrated program switching detection. That's of course for detecting people running a chess engine on the side and not directly applicable to your case, but you may be able to extrapolate the apporach to something like if process X takes more than Z% CPU time the next Y cycles, it's probably a bot running.
That in addition to a "you must not run anything else while playing the game to be eligible for prizes" as part of the contest rules might work.
Also, a draconian "we might decide in any time for any reason that you have been using a bot and disqualify you" rule also helps with the heuristic approach above (used in prized ICC chess tournaments).
All these questions are easily solved by the rule 1 above:
* how to detect if another application makes periodical screenshots?
* how to detect if another application scans our process memory?
* what are good ways to determine whether user input (mouse movement, keyboard input) is human-generated and not automated?
* is it possible to detect if another application requests informations about controls in our application (position of controls etc)?
I think a good way to make harder the problem to the crackers is to have the only authoritative copies of the game state in your servers, only sending to and receiving updates from the clients, that way you can embed in the communication protocol itself client validation (that it hasn't been cracked and thus the detection rules are still in place). That, and actively monitoring for new weird behavior found might get you close to where you want to be.