I'm creating an asynchronous socket programming in vb.net. i've utilised the code from Asynchronous client and server code from the following links:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/fx6588te.aspx for server program
The client program is present as per http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bew39x2a.aspx.
When I try to connect the for more than one client the second client always waits until the first client completes the call. I want the clients to accept calls at the same time.
Does WCF help to make multiple clients to accept calls at the same time? If so what is WCF and how will it help. Or is there any other concept which can help?
Yes, WCF can help you there. But it implements only well known protocols like SOAP, WS-*, JSON, and a few proprietary ones like binary TCP binding.
You'd only use async socket programming if you need
High scalability (more than 20 simultaneous clients)
A custom protocol
If you build on top of HTTP, I recommend the HttpListener class
If you need a custom protocol with a few clients, use synchronous socket programming with multiple threads.
If you still want to implement a server with async sockets, then you need a continuous loop that accepts connections (after EndAccept() immediately call BeginAccept() again) and then start the BeginReceive()
I can tell you from experience though that debugging such a server is not easy. It's quite hard to follow the chain of events even through a detailed log file. Good luck with that :)
Related
FYI: This will be my first real foray into Async/Await; for too long I've been settling for the familiar territory of BackgroundWorker. It's time to move on.
I wish to build a WCF service, self-hosted in a Windows service running on a remote machine in the same LAN, that does this:
Accepts a request for a single .ZIP archive
Creates the archive and packages several files
Returns the archive as its response to the request
I have to support archives as large as 10GB. Needless to say, this scenario isn't covered by basic WCF designs; we must take additional steps to meet the requirement. We must eliminate timeouts while the archive is building and memory errors while it's being sent. Both of these occur under basic WCF designs, depending on the size of the file returned.
My plan is to proceed using task-based asynchronous WCF calls and streaming mode.
I have two concerns:
Is this the proper approach to the problem?
Microsoft has done a nice job at abstracting all of this, but what of the underlying protocols? What goes on 'under the hood?' Does the server keep the connection alive while the archive is building (could be several minutes) or instead does it close the connection and initiate a new one once the operation is complete, thereby requiring me to properly route the request through the client machine firewall?
For #2, clearly I'm hoping for the former (keep-alive). But after some searching I'm not easily finding an answer. Perhaps you know.
You need streaming for big payloads. That is the right approach. This has nothing at all to do with asynchronous IO. The two are independent. The client cannot even tell that the server is async internally.
I'll add my standard answers for whether to use async IO or not:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/25087273/122718 Why does the EF 6 tutorial use asychronous calls?
https://stackoverflow.com/a/12796711/122718 Should we switch to use async I/O by default?
Each request runs over a single connection that is kept alive. This goes for both streaming big amounts of data as well as big initial delays. Not sure why you are concerned about routing. Does your router kill such connections? That's a problem.
Regarding keep alive, there is nothing going over the wire to do that. TCP sessions can stay open indefinitely without any kind of wire traffic.
In the project I'm currently working we're using WCF.
Company policy forces us to use async calls and the reason should be security.
I've asked why this is so much more secure but I don't get clear answers.
Can someone explain why this is so much secure?
They are not. The same security (authentication, encryption) mechanisms and considerations apply whether a call blocks until it gets a response or it uses a callback.
The only way someone may be confused into thinking that asynch calls are more "safe/secure", is they think that unhandled WCF exceptions will not bring down the main thread if they are asynchronous, as they will be raised inside the callback.
In this case, I would advice extreme caution when approaching the owner of this policy to avoid career-limiting consequences. Some people can get emotionally attached to their policies.
There is no point why an async call will be more secure than a sync call. I think you should talk to the owner of the policy for the same.
No they are not more or less secure than synchronous calls. The only difference is the client waits for a response on synchronous calls, whereas on async it is notified of a response.
Are they coming from the angle that synchronous calls leave the connection open longer or something?
Just exposing a WCF operation using an async signature (BeginBlah/EndBlah) doesn't actually affect the exposed operation at all. When you view the meta data, an operation like
[OperationContract(AsyncPattern=true)]
IAsyncResult BeginSomething(AsyncCallback, object)
void EndSomething(IAsyncResult)
...actually still ends up being represented as an operation called 'Something'. And actually this is one of the nice things about WCF: the client and server can differ in whether they choose to implement/consume an operation syncronously.
So if you are using generating WCF proxies (eg through Add Service Reference) then you will get syncronous versions of each operation whether they are implemented asyncronously or not unless you tick the little checkbox to generate the async overloads. And when you do you then get async versions of operations that might only be declared syncronously on the server.
All WCF is doing is, on both the client and server, giving you a choice about your threading model: do you want WCF to wait for the result, or are you going to signal it that you've finished. How the actual transport connection is managed is - to the best of my knowlege - totally unaffected. eg: For a NetTcpBinding the socket still stays open for the duration of the call, either way.
So, to get to the point, I really struggle to imagine how this could possibly make any difference to the security envelope of a WCF service. If a service is exposed using an async pattern, and is genuinely implemented in an async way (async for outbound IO, or queues work via the thread pool or something) then there's probably an argument that it would be harder to DOS the service (by exhausting the pool of WCF IO threads), but that'd be about it.
See Syncronous and Asyncronous Operations in MSDN
NB: If you are sharing the contract interface between the client and server then obviously the syncronisity of the two ends match (because they are both using the same interface type), but that's just a limitation of using a shared interface. If you made another equivilent interface, differing only by the async pattern, you could still create a ChannelFactory against it just fine.
I agree with the other answers - definitely not more secure.
Fire up Fiddler and watch a synchronous request vs. an asynchronous request. You'll basically see the same type of traffic (although the sync may send and receive more data since it's probably a postback). But you can intercept both of those requests, manipulate them, and resend them and cause havoc on your server.
Fiddler's a great tool, by the way. It's an eye-opener in terms of what kind of data and how much data you're sending to the server.
Using techniques as hinted at in:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.servicemodel.servicecontractattribute.callbackcontract.aspx
I am implementing a ServerPush setup for my API to get realtime notifications from a server of events (no polling). Basically, the Server has a RegisterMe() and UnregisterMe() method and the client has a callback method called Announcement(string message) that, through the CallbackContract mechanisms in WCF, the server can call. This seems to work well.
Unfortunately, in this setup, if the Server were to crash or is otherwise unavailable, the Client won't know since it is only listening for messages. Silence on the line could mean no Announcements or it could mean that the server is not available.
Since my goal is to reduce polling rather than immediacy, I don't mind adding a void Ping() method on the Server alongside RegisterMe() and UnregisterMe() that merely exists to test connectivity of to the server. Periodically testing this method would, I believe, ensure that we're still connected (and also that no Announcements have been dropped by the transport, since this is TCP)
But is the Ping() method necessary or is this connectivity test otherwise available as part of WCF by default - like serverProxy.IsStillConnected() or something. As I understand it, the channel's State would only return Faulted or Closed AFTER a failed Ping(), but not instead of it.
2) From a broader perspective, is this callback approach solid? This is not for http or ajax - the number of connected clients will be few (tens of clients, max). Are there serious problems with this approach? As this seems to be a mild risk, how can I limit a slow/malicious client from blocking the server by not processing it's callback queue fast enough? Is there a kind of timeout specific to the callback that I can set without affecting other operations?
Your approach sounds reasonable, here are some links that may or may not help (they are not quite exactly related):
Detecting Client Death in WCF Duplex Contracts
http://tomasz.janczuk.org/2009/08/performance-of-http-polling-duplex.html
Having some health check built into your application protocol makes sense.
If you are worried about malicious clients, then add authorization.
The second link I shared above has a sample pub/sub server, you might be able to use this code. A couple things to watch out for -- consider pushing notifications via async calls or on a separate thread. And set the sendTimeout on the tcp binding.
HTH
I wrote a WCF application and encountered a similar problem. My server checked clients had not 'plug pulled' by periodically sending a ping to them. The actual send method (it was asynchronous being a server) had a timeout of 30 seconds. The client simply checked it received the data every 30 seconds, while the server would catch an exception if the timeout was reached.
Authorisation was required to connect to the server (by using the built-in feature of WCF that force the connecting person to call a particular method first) so from a malicious client perspective you could easily add code to check and ban their account if they do something suspicious, while disconnecting users who do not authenticate.
As the server I wrote was asynchronous, there wasn't any way to really block it. I guess that addresses your last point, as the asynchronous send method fires off the ping (and any other sending of data) and returns immediately. In the SendEnd method it would catch the timeout exception (sometimes multiple for the client) and disconnect them, without any blocking or freezing of the server.
Hope that helps.
You could use a publisher / subscriber service similar to the one suggested by Juval:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163537.aspx
This would allow you to persist the subscribers if losing the server is a typical scenario. The publish method in this example also calls each subscribers on a separate thread, so a few dead subscribers will not block others...
I have found myself responsible for carrying on the development of a system which I did not originally design and can't ask the original designers why certain design decisions were taken, as they are no longer here. I am a junior developer on design issues so didn't really know what to ask when I started on the project which was my first SOA / WCF project.
The system has 7 WCF services, will grow to 9, each self-hosted in a seperate console app/windows service. All of them are single instance and single threaded. All services have the same OperationContract: they expose a Register() and Send() method. When client services want to connect to another service, they first call Register(), then if successful they do all the rest of their communication with Send(). We have a DataContract that has an enum MessageType and a Content propety which can contain other DataContract "payloads." What the service does with the message is determined by the enum MessageType...everything comes through the Send() method and then gets routed to a switch statement...I suspect this is unusual
Register() and Send() are actually OneWay and Async...ALL results from services are returned to client services by a WCF CallbackContract. I believe that the reson for using CallbackContracts is to facilitate the Publish-Subscribe model we are using. The problem is not all of our communication fits publish-subscribe and using CallbackContracts means we have to include source details in returned result messages so clients can work out what the returned results were originally for...again clients have a switch statements to work out what to do with messages arriving from services based on the MessageType (and other embedded details).
In terms of topology: the services form "nodes" in a graph. Each service has hardcoded a list of other services it must connect to when it starts, and wont allow client services to "Register" with it until is has made all of the connections it needs. As an example, we have a LoggingService and a DataAccessService. The DataAccessSevice is a client of the LoggingService and so the DataAccess service will attempt to Register with the LoggingService when it starts. Until it can successfully Register the DataAccess service will not allow any clients to Register with it. The result is that when the system is fired up as a whole the services start up in a cascadeing manner. I don't see this as an issue, but is this unusual?
To make matters more complex, one of the systems requirements is that services or "nodes" do not need to be directly registered with one another in order to send messages to one another, but can communicate via indirect links. For example, say we have 3 services A, B and C connected in a chain, A can send a message to C via B...using 2 hops.
I was actually tasked with this and wrote the routing system, it was fun, but the lead left before I could ask why it was really needed. As far as I can see, there is no reason why services cannot just connect direct to the other services they need. Whats more I had to write a reliability system on top of everything as the requirement was to have reliable messaging across nodes in the system, wheras with simple point-to-point links WCF reliabily does the job.
Prior to this project I had only worked on winforms desktop apps for 3 years, do didn't know any better. My suspicions are things are overcomplicated with this project: I guess to summarise, my questions are:
1) Is this idea of a graph topology with messages hopping over indirect links unusual? Why not just connect services directly to the services that they need to access (which in reality is what we do anyway...I dont think we have any messages hopping)?
2) Is exposing just 2 methods in the OperationContract and using the a MessageType enum to determine what the message is for/what to do with it unusual? Shouldnt a WCF service expose lots of methods with specific purposes instead and the client chooses what methods it wants to call?
3) Is doing all communication back to a client via CallbackContracts unusual. Surely sync or asyc request-response is simpler.
4) Is the idea of a service not allowing client services to connect to it (Register) until it has connected to all of its services (to which it is a client) a sound design? I think this is the only design aspect I agree with, I mean the DataAccessService should not accept clients until it has a connection with the logging service.
I have so many WCF questions, more will come in later threads. Thanks in advance.
Well, the whole things seems a bit odd, agreed.
All of them are single instance and
single threaded.
That's definitely going to come back and cause massive performance headaches - guaranteed. I don't understand why anyone would want to write a singleton WCF service to begin with (except for a few edge cases, where it does make sense), and if you do have a singleton WCF service, to get any decent performance, it must be multi-threaded (which is tricky programming, and is why I almost always advise against it).
All services have the same
OperationContract: they expose a
Register() and Send() method.
That's rather odd, too. So anyone calling will first .Register(), and then call .Send() with different parameters several times?? Funny design, really.... The SOA assumption is that you design your services to be the model of a set of functionality you want to expose to the outside world, e.g. your CustomerService might have methods like GetCustomerByID, GetAllCustomersByCountry, etc. methods - depending on what you need.
Having just a single Send() method with parameters which define what is being done seems a bit.... unusual and not very intuitive / clear.
Is this idea of a graph topology with
messages hopping over indirect links
unusual?
Not necessarily. It can make sense to expose just a single interface to the outside world, and then use some internal backend services to do the actual work. .NET 4 will actually introduce a RoutingService in WCF which makes these kind of scenarios easier. I don't think this is a big no-no.
Is doing all communication back to a
client via CallbackContracts unusual.
Yes, unusual, fragile, messy - if you can ever do without it - go for it. If you have mostly simple calls, like GetCustomerByID - make those a standard Request/Response call - the client requests something (by supplying a Customer ID) and gets back a Customer object as a return value. Much much simpler!
If you do have long-running service calls, that might take minutes or more to complete - then you might consider One-Way calls which just deposit a request into a queue, and that request gets handled later on. Typically, here, you can either deposit the answer into a response queue which the client then checks, or you can have two additional service methods which give you the status of a request (is it done yet?) and a second method to retrieve the result(s) of that request.
Hope that helps to get you started !
All services have the same OperationContract: they expose a Register() and Send() method.
Your design seems unusual at some parts specially exposing only two operations. I haven't worked with WCF, we use Java. But based on my understanding the whole purpose of Web Services is to expose Operations that your partners can utilise.
Having only two Operations looks like odd design to me. You generally expose your API using WSDL. In this case the WSDL would add nothing of value to the partners, unless you have lot of documentation. Generally the operation name should be self-explanatory. Right now your system cannot be used by partners without having internal knowledge.
Is doing all communication back to a client via CallbackContracts unusual. Surely sync or asyc request-response is simpler.
Agree with you. Async should only be used for long running processes. Async adds the overhead of correlation.
I'm building an Objective-C app that has both a server and a client. The client can send updates to the server, and the server needs to be able to send updates to each connected client. I've been thinking about how best to implement this system, but am asking for your suggestions.
Currently, I'm thinking that when new updates are available, the server will use threads to send the update to each client in turn. If a client times out, they are disconnected.
I have very little networking experience, so am asking your insight.
Do you think that this system would work well?
If so, do you have any suggestions about how to do the threading? Any NS classes you can point me at? There's got to be some kind of queue I can use, I'm thinking.
Any other thoughts?
EDIT: I do not expect the client count to get much above 50 or so, at the max.
As long as both client and server are OS X apps and can both be written in Objective-C using the Cocoa frameworks, I would highly recommend you take a look at the Distributed Objects (DO) technology in Cocoa. I won't try to give a tutorial in Distributed Objects here, just explain why it might be useful...
DO handles asynchronous network details for you (all your client updates could happen on a single thread). In addition the semantics of communication with a remote object (client to server or visa versa; DO is bidirectional once the connection is established) are very similar to in-process communication. In other words, once you have a reference to the remote object (really an NSDistantObject which acts as a proxy to the object on the other end of the connection), your client code can send messages to the remote object as if it were local:
[remoteServer update:client];
from the client or
[[remoteClientList objectAtIndex:i] update:server];
from the server. I'll leave the details of setting up the connection and for getting the remoteServer or remoteClient reference to you after reading the Distributed Objects programming guide.
The downside of using DO is that you are tied to Cocoa; it will be very difficult to write a non-Cocoa client or server that communicates using Distirbuted Objects. If there's a chance you may want to have non-Cocoa client or server implementations, you should not use DO. In this case, I would recommend something simple with a lot of cross-platform and language support. A REST-style API over HTTP is a good option. Have a look at the Cocoa URL Loading System documentation for info on how to implement HTTP requests and responses. Have a look at Apple's CocoaHTTPServer example code or a code.google.com project of the same name for info on implementing an HTTP server in your Cocoa code.
As a very last option, you can take a look at the Cocoa Stream Programming Guide if you want to implement your own network protocol. NSStream's subclasses will let you listen on a network socket and handle asynchronous reads/writes to/from that socket. A lot of people use AsyncSocket for this purpose. It wraps the (lower-level) CFStream and CFSocket and makes writing network code somewhat easier.
When the server sends updates to the clients, it would probably be easier to just have one thread handle them all, and just use async sockets. Of course this would depend on how many clients you had to deal with too.
There's several networking examples in the apple developer side.
One I would recommend that you check out is the URLCache, which can be downloaded.
Quoting from the Apple's documentation for this example:
URLCache is a sample iPhone application that demonstrates how to download a resource off the web, store it in the application's data directory, and use the local copy of the resource. URLCache also demonstrates how to implement a couple of caching policies:
An interesting option is the BLIP protocol from Jens Alfke. It's like a stripped down version of BEEP: a message oriented networking system. It basically provides the low-level abstractions for a bidirectional message pipe so you can concentrate on layering your communication protocol on top of it.
It has some worthy followers such as Marcus Zarra (author of the CoreData bible) and Gus Mueller of Flying Meat software.
I don't know how you plan to design you system, but usually a server cannot connect to a client; the client must initiate the communication. With a low limit of 50 clients, you may not be looking at a web-server/client-like implementation...
That said, there are basically two ways to handle client server communication:
1. The client polls the server periodically to get updates
2. The client keeps a connection open to the server and the the server responds with a well known (as in both sides understand it) protocol.