Not a specific question as such, I'm more trying to test the waters. I like distributed objects, and I like grand central dispatch; How about I try to combine the two?
Does that even make sense? Has anyone played around in these waters? Would I be able to use GCD to help synchronize object access across machines? Or would it be better to stick to synchronizing local objects only? What should I look out for? What design patterns are helpful and what should I avoid?
as an example, I use GCD queues to synchronize accesses to a shared resource of some kind. What can I expect to happen if I make this resource public via distributed objects? Questions like: How nicely to blocks play with distributed objects? Can I expect to use the everything as normal across machines? If not, can I wrangle it to do so? What difficulties can I expect?
I very much doubt this will work well. GCD objects are not Cocoa objects, so you can't reference them remotely. GCD synchronization primitives don't work across process boundaries.
While blocks are objects, they do not support NSCoding, so they can't be transmitted across process boundaries. (If you think about it, they are not much more than function pointers. The pointed-to function must have been compiled into the executable. So, it doesn't make sense that two different programs would share a block.)
Also, Distributed Objects depends on the connection being scheduled in a given run loop. Since you don't manage the threads used by GCD, you are not entitled to add run loop sources except temporarily.
Frankly, I'm not even sure how you envision it even theoretically working. What do you hope to do? How do you anticipate it working?
Running across machines -- as in a LAN, MAN, or WAN?
In a LAN, distributed objects will probably work okay as long as the server you are connecting to is operational. However, most programmers you meet will probably raise an eyebrow and just ask you, "Why didn't you just use a web server on the LAN and just build your own wrapper class that makes it 'feel' like Distributed Objects?" I mean, for one thing, there are well-established tools for troubleshooting web servers, and it's easier and often cheaper to hire someone to build a web service for you rather than a distributed object server.
On a MAN or WAN, however, this would be slow and a very bad idea for most uses. For that type of communication, you're better off using what everyone else uses -- REST-like APIs with HTTPS/HTTP, sending either XML, JSON, or key/value data back and forth. So, you could make a class wrapper that makes this "feel" sort of like distributed objects. And my gut feeling tells me that you'll need to use tricks to speed this up, such as caching chunks of data locally on the client so that you don't have to keep fetching from the server, or even caching on the server so that it doesn't have to interact with a database as often.
GCD, Distributed Objects, Mach Ports, XPC, POSIX Message Queues, Named Pipes, Shared Memory, and many other IPC mechanisms really only make the most sense on local, application to application communication on the same computer. And they have the added advantage of privilege elevation if you want to utilize that. (Note, I said POSIX Message Queues, which are workstation-specific. You can still use a 'message queue service' on a LAN, MAN, or WAN -- there are many products available for that.)
Related
I'm looking at building a Cocoa application on the Mac with a back-end daemon process (really just a mostly-headless Cocoa app, probably), along with 0 or more "client" applications running locally (although if possible I'd like to support remote clients as well; the remote clients would only ever be other Macs or iPhone OS devices).
The data being communicated will be fairly trivial, mostly just text and commands (which I guess can be represented as text anyway), and maybe the occasional small file (an image possibly).
I've looked at a few methods for doing this but I'm not sure which is "best" for the task at hand. Things I've considered:
Reading and writing to a file (…yes), very basic but not very scalable.
Pure sockets (I have no experience with sockets but I seem to think I can use them to send data locally and over a network. Though it seems cumbersome if doing everything in Cocoa
Distributed Objects: seems rather inelegant for a task like this
NSConnection: I can't really figure out what this class even does, but I've read of it in some IPC search results
I'm sure there are things I'm missing, but I was surprised to find a lack of resources on this topic.
I am currently looking into the same questions. For me the possibility of adding Windows clients later makes the situation more complicated; in your case the answer seems to be simpler.
About the options you have considered:
Control files: While it is possible to communicate via control files, you have to keep in mind that the files need to be communicated via a network file system among the machines involved. So the network file system serves as an abstraction of the actual network infrastructure, but does not offer the full power and flexibility the network normally has. Implementation: Practically, you will need to have at least two files for each pair of client/servers: a file the server uses to send a request to the client(s) and a file for the responses. If each process can communicate both ways, you need to duplicate this. Furthermore, both the client(s) and the server(s) work on a "pull" basis, i.e., they need to revisit the control files frequently and see if something new has been delivered.
The advantage of this solution is that it minimizes the need for learning new techniques. The big disadvantage is that it has huge demands on the program logic; a lot of things need to be taken care of by you (Will the files be written in one piece or can it happen that any party picks up inconsistent files? How frequently should checks be implemented? Do I need to worry about the file system, like caching, etc? Can I add encryption later without toying around with things outside of my program code? ...)
If portability was an issue (which, as far as I understood from your question is not the case) then this solution would be easy to port to different systems and even different programming languages. However, I don't know of any network files ystem for iPhone OS, but I am not familiar with this.
Sockets: The programming interface is certainly different; depending on your experience with socket programming it may mean that you have more work learning it first and debugging it later. Implementation: Practically, you will need a similar logic as before, i.e., client(s) and server(s) communicating via the network. A definite plus of this approach is that the processes can work on a "push" basis, i.e., they can listen on a socket until a message arrives which is superior to checking control files regularly. Network corruption and inconsistencies are also not your concern. Furthermore, you (may) have more control over the way the connections are established rather than relying on things outside of your program's control (again, this is important if you decide to add encryption later on).
The advantage is that a lot of things are taken off your shoulders that would bother an implementation in 1. The disadvantage is that you still need to change your program logic substantially in order to make sure that you send and receive the correct information (file types etc.).
In my experience portability (i.e., ease of transitioning to different systems and even programming languages) is very good since anything even remotely compatible to POSIX works.
[EDIT: In particular, as soon as you communicate binary numbers endianess becomes an issue and you have to take care of this problem manually - this is a common (!) special case of the "correct information" issue I mentioned above. It will bite you e.g. when you have a PowerPC talking to an Intel Mac. This special case disappears with the solution 3.+4. together will all of the other "correct information" issues.]
+4. Distributed objects: The NSProxy class cluster is used to implement distributed objects. NSConnection is responsible for setting up remote connections as a prerequisite for sending information around, so once you understand how to use this system, you also understand distributed objects. ;^)
The idea is that your high-level program logic does not need to be changed (i.e., your objects communicate via messages and receive results and the messages together with the return types are identical to what you are used to from your local implementation) without having to bother about the particulars of the network infrastructure. Well, at least in theory. Implementation: I am also working on this right now, so my understanding is still limited. As far as I understand, you do need to setup a certain structure, i.e., you still have to decide which processes (local and/or remote) can receive which messages; this is what NSConnection does. At this point, you implicitly define a client/server architecture, but you do not need to worry about the problems mentioned in 2.
There is an introduction with two explicit examples at the Gnustep project server; it illustrates how the technology works and is a good starting point for experimenting:
http://www.gnustep.org/resources/documentation/Developer/Base/ProgrammingManual/manual_7.html
Unfortunately, the disadvantages are a total loss of compatibility (although you will still do fine with the setup you mentioned of Macs and iPhone/iPad only) with other systems and loss of portability to other languages. Gnustep with Objective-C is at best code-compatible, but there is no way to communicate between Gnustep and Cocoa, see my edit to question number 2 here: CORBA on Mac OS X (Cocoa)
[EDIT: I just came across another piece of information that I was unaware of. While I have checked that NSProxy is available on the iPhone, I did not check whether the other parts of the distributed objects mechanism are. According to this link: http://www.cocoabuilder.com/archive/cocoa/224358-big-picture-relationships-between-nsconnection-nsinputstream-nsoutputstream-etc.html (search the page for the phrase "iPhone OS") they are not. This would exclude this solution if you demand to use iPhone/iPad at this moment.]
So to conclude, there is a trade-off between effort of learning (and implementing and debugging) new technologies on the one hand and hand-coding lower-level communication logic on the other. While the distributed object approach takes most load of your shoulders and incurs the smallest changes in program logic, it is the hardest to learn and also (unfortunately) the least portable.
Disclaimer: Distributed Objects are not available on iPhone.
Why do you find distributed objects inelegant? They sounds like a good match here:
transparent marshalling of fundamental types and Objective-C classes
it doesn't really matter wether clients are local or remote
not much additional work for Cocoa-based applications
The documentation might make it sound like more work then it actually is, but all you basically have to do is to use protocols cleanly and export, or respectively connect to, the servers root object.
The rest should happen automagically behind the scenes for you in the given scenario.
We are using ThoMoNetworking and it works fine and is fast to setup. Basically it allows you to send NSCoding compliant objects in the local network, but of course also works if client and server are on he same machine. As a wrapper around the foundation classes it takes care of pairing, reconnections, etc..
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 have a scientific program written in F# which I want to parallelize and run on 1 server with multiple processors (64) and for the future also in the cloud (Windows Azure?). The program will have a simple 1-1 communication between the nodes (no broadcast etc.).
If I used WCF, would it be as fast as MPI? What has MPI that WCF does not? There exists Pure MPI .NET written for WCF which puzzles me even more. I do not know if to use WCF or MPI.NET or Pure Mpi running on WCF.
PS: I guess that TPL is out of the game for 64 processors and more, right?
It is difficult to give a concrete answer, because it all depends on the specific aspects of your application, its current architecture (I suppose you already have some app) etc.
As you mention MPI and WCF, I assume that the application is written as several components that communicate with each other. The best way to structure this kind of application is to use F# agents.
As far as I understand, you want to run the application on a single server first. If you write it using agents, the agents can just communicate directly with each other (so you don't need MPI or WCF).
TPL should work well on a single-server (with lots of CPUs), but it will not scale to the distributed setting - you cannot run Task on another machine. However, you can use it inside individual components (e.g. agents) that will be distributed.
Regarding MPI vs. WCF - I don't have enough experience to answer that. However, if you use agent-based architecture, it should be easy to try various options. You may also check out fracture and related projects, which aims to implement high-performance sockets for F# (and possibly distributed agents in the future).
If you're doing it on 1 server you could just execute one process and execute the code in parallel. That way you could share memory more easily and faster than doing it through messages like MPI and WCF. Although the overhead of communication might not be that much, depending on your problem + solution.
Also the changes to your code would be much less that way, F# can usually be turned into prallel code with little effort. Going to MPI/WCF would require you to rewrite large portions.
Googling for F# + parallel gives plenty useful info that you should read first, like this for a good start:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/dsyme/archive/2010/01/09/async-and-parallel-design-patterns-in-f-parallelizing-cpu-and-i-o-computations.aspx
So on 1 server, I woudl use the parallel features of F#, it's designed to prallelize easily.
Later when you want to go for cloud, that would be turning it into cleint-server. That's a different problem then parallization. I would treat and solve them seperately.
On the MPI vs WCF. WCF is designed as a RPC technology, i.e. you call remote procedures and get answers. If you want to use it for parallel programming with separate processes, you would have to create the boilerplate code for that. (Keep track of subsribed clients etc.)
MPI was designed to run that kind of architecture and handles it much more easily. (the first process gets number 0 and is the master, the other are slaves get numbered incrementally etc.)
Howver I don't think MPI will be very good to go cloud, since that invloves http, protocols, security etc. Not sure how well MPI works for those kind of things, WCF will handle that very well indeed.
The fact that there is an MPI.NET for WCF is because MPI is about a certain style of parallizing code that a lot of people are familiar with. So you can use the programming concepts and use them on the .NET platform leveraging WCF for the communications.
Something else you might want to look into if you need to exchange a lot of data over the wire is protocol-buffers (see protobuf-net for instance). That can easily be combined with WCF for communication and is very lean in serializing structured data so you can send over the wire efficiently.
Gert-Jan
WCF and MPI are different concepts. WCF is like a person A asks a person B to do something where as MPI is like a person A creates clones of himself (all clone have same ability/logic) and then these clones work on specific parts of the problem to be solved and once done they combine their results.
So choosing between which one fits your specific application depends on the problem your application is trying to solve. It may even be a combination of both WCF and MPI. Where your client application asks the WCF to do some task and the WCF create clones of the "problem solver" using MPI and when the clone are done with solving the problem (in parallel) they return the aggregated result back to the WCF and then that result is sent to client application.
You might also want to take at the 'mbrace' product, which provides a cloud monad (http://blogs.msdn.com/b/dsyme/archive/2011/08/23/m-brace-f-in-the-cloud.aspx). It's still at a fairly early stage though. I'm no expert but it may be that you can run an mbrace-based solution as effectively a private cloud on your 64-processor setup. When you outgrow that, a move to Azure would be seamless.
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.
Almost every application out there performs i/o operations, either with disk or over network.
As my applications work fine under the development-time environment, I want to be sure they will still do when the Internet connection is slow or unstable, or when the user attempts to read data from badly-written CD.
What tools would you recommend to simulate:
slow i/o (opening files, closing files, reading and writing, enumeration of directory items)
occasional i/o errors
occasional 'access denied' responses
packet loss in tcp/ip
etc...
EDIT:
Windows:
The closest solution to do the job as described seems to be holodeck, commercial software (>$900).
Linux:
Open solution wasn't found by now, but the same effect
can be achived as specified by smcameron and krosenvold.
Decorator pattern is a good idea.
It would require to wrap my i/o classes, but resulting in a testing framework.
The only remaining untested code would be in 3rd party libraries.
Yet I decided not to go this way, but leave my code as it is and simulate i/o errors from outside.
I now know that what I need is called 'fault injection'.
I thought it was a common production-line part with plenty of solutions I just didn't know.
(By the way, another similar good idea is 'fuzz testing', thanks to Lennart)
On my mind, the problem is still not worth $900.
I'm going to implement my own open-source tool based on hooks (targeting win32).
I'll update this post when I'm done with it. Come back in 3 or 4 weeks or so...
What you need is a fault injecting testing system. James Whittaker's 'How to break software' is a good read on this subject and includes a CD with many of the tools needed.
If you're on linux you can do tons of magic with iptables;
iptables -I OUTPUT -p tcp --dport 7991 -j DROP
Can simulate connections up/down as well. There's lots of tutorials out there.
Check out "Fuzz testing": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzing
At a programming level many frameworks will let you wrap the IO stream classes and delegate calls to the wrapped instance. I'd do this and add in a couple of wait calls in the key methods (writing bytes, closing the stream, throwing IO exceptions, etc). You could write a few of these with different failure or issue type and use the decorator pattern to combine as needed.
This should give you quite a lot of flexibility with tweaking which operations would be slowed down, inserting "random" errors every so often etc.
The other advantage is that you could develop it in the same code as your software so maintenance wouldn't require any new skills.
You don't say what OS, but if it's linux or unix-ish, you can wrap open(), read(), write(), or any library or system call etc, with an LD_PRELOAD-able library to inject faults.
Along these lines:
http://scaryreasoner.wordpress.com/2007/11/17/using-ld_preload-libraries-and-glibc-backtrace-function-for-debugging/
I didn't go writing my own file system filter, as I initially thought, because there's a simpler solution.
1. Network i/o
I've found at least 2 ways to simulate i/o errors here.
a) Running a virtual machine (such as vmware) allows to configure bandwidth and packet loss rate. Vmware supports on-machine debugging.
b) Running a proxy on the local machine and tunneling all the traffic through it. For the case of upd/tcp communications a proxifier (e.g. widecap) can be used.
2. File i/o
I've managed to deduce this scenario to the previous one by mapping a drive letter to a network share which resides inside the virtual machine. The file i/o will be slow.
A cheaper alternative exists: to set up a local ftp server (e.g. FileZilla), configure speeds and use Novell's NetDrive to access it.
You'll wanna setup a test lab for this. What type of application are you building anyway? Are you really expecting the application be fed corrupt data?
A test technique I know the Microsoft Exchange Server people tried was sending noise to the server. Basically feeding every possible input with seemingly random data. They managed to crash the server quite often this way.
But still, if you can't trust input that hasn't been signed then general rules apply. Track every operation which could potentially be untrusted (result of corrupt data) and you should be able to handle most problems gracefully.
Just test your application behavior on random input, that should catch most problems but you'll never be able to fully protect your self from corrupt data. That's just not possible, as the data could be part of some internal buffer being handed off within the application itself.
Be mindful of when and how you decode data. That is all.
The first thing you'll need to do is define what "correct" means under these circumstances. You can only test against a definition of what behaviour is intended.
The tactics of testing will depend on technology. In the context of automated unit testing, I have found it very useful, in OO languages such as Java, to use various flavors of "mocking" or "stubbing" to pass e.g. misbehaving InputStreams to parts of my code that used file I/O.
Consider holodeck for some of the fault injection, if you have access to spare hardware you can simulate network impairment using Netem or a commercial product based on it the Mini-Maxwell, which is much more expensive than free but possibly easier to use.