I want to create a simple video streaming (actually, image streaming) server that can manage different protocols (TCP Push/Pull, UDP Push/Pull/Multicast).
I managed to get TCP Push/Pull working with the SocketServer.TCPServer class and ThreadinMixIn for processing each connected client in a different thread.
But now that I'm working on the UDP protocol, I just realized that ThreadinMixIn creates a thread per call of handle() per client query (as there's nothing such as a "connection" in UDP).
The problem is I need to process a sequence of queries by the same client, for all the clients. How could I manage that ?
The only way I see I could handle that is to have a list of (client adresses, processing thread) and send each query to the matching thread (or create a new one if the client haven't sent any thread yet). Is there an easier way to do that ?
Thanks !
P.S : I can't use any external or too "high-level" library for this as it's a school subject meant to understand how sockets work.
Take a look at Twisted. This will remove the need to do any thread dispatch from your application. You still have to match up packets to a particular session in order to handle them, but this isn't difficult (use a port per client and dispatch based on the port, or require packets in a session to always come from the same address and use the peer address, or use one of the existing protocols that solves this problem such as SIP).
Related
I tried to use python's zmq lib. And now I have two questions:
Is there a way to check socket connection state?
I'd like to know if connection is established after call connect
I want to one-to-one communication model.
I tried to use PAIR zmq socket type.
In that case if one client is already connected, server will not receive any messages from secondary connected client.
But I'd like to get info in the second client that there is another client and server is busy.
You'd get an error if connect fails.
But I guess the real question is how often do you want to check this? once at startup, before each message, or periodically, using some heartbeat?
That does not make sense, as you can not send info without connecting first.
However, some socket types might give some more info.
But the best way would be to use multiple sockets: one for such status information, and another one for sending data.
ZMQ is made to use multiple sockets.
I'm working with a python application that makes remote procedure calls, using Twisted Perspective broker's callRemote, on a TCP connection. From a system call trace, it appears that multiple remote procedure calls from the sender could be aggregated together into a single sendto() call on the socket. The same behavior was observed with the receiver's response as well. I would've thought that as long as the socket was write-able and if there was some data to send, Perspective broker would send it out on the socket. But it does not appear to be the case.
Does Twisted's Perspective broker aggregate multiple RPC messages together for a specific reason, before they are sent on the socket ? In other words, does Twisted do something similar to Nagle's algorithm in TCP ?
If the above is true, is there an option to turn off this behavior ?
Twisted performs write buffering in the underlying twisted.internet.abstract.FileDescriptor object. You can try changing the twisted.internet.abstract.FileDescriptor.SEND_LIMIT attribute to something smaller to force it to write to the socket more frequently.
See the Twisted bug 4089 for discussion about the SEND_LIMIT and bufferSize attributes.
I've come to the realization where I need to change my design for a file synchronization program I am writing.
Currently, my program goes as follows:
1) client connects to server (and is verified)
2) if the client is verified, create a thread and begin a loop using the socket the client connected with
3) if a file on the client or server changes, send the change through that socket (using select for asynchronous communication)
My code sucks because I am torn between using one socket for file transfer or using a socket for each file transfer. Either case (in my opinion) will work, but for the first case I would have to create some sort of protocol to determine what bytes go where (some sort of header), and for the second case, I would have to create new sockets on a new thread (that do not need to be verified again), so that files can be sent on each thread without worrying about asynchronous transfer.
I would prefer to do the second option, so I'm investigating using SocketServer. Would this kind of problem be solved with SocketServer.ThreadingTCPServer and SocketServer.ThreadingMixIn? I'm having trouble thinking about it because I would assume SocketServer.ThreadingMixIn works for newly connected clients, unless I somehow have an "outer" socket server which servers "inner" socket servers?
SocketServer will work for you. You create one SocketServer per port you want to listen on. Your choice is whether you have one listener that handles the client/server connection plus per file connections (you'd need some sort of header to tell the difference) or two listeners that separate client/server connection and per file connections (you'd still need a header so that you knew which file was coming in).
Alternately, you could choose something like zeromq that provides a message transport for you.
I'm using a pyzmq pub/sub socket for a server to advertise notifications to client subscribers. It works nicely but I have a question:
Is there any way to use the same socket to send information back to the server? Or do I need a separate socket for that?
Use case: I just want to allow the server to see who's actively subscribing to notifications, so I was hoping I could allow clients to send back periodic "heartbeat" messages. I have a use case where if no clients are listening, I want the server to spawn one. (This is a multiprocess system that uses localhost only.)
You need a separate socket. From the ZMQ guide (http://zguide.zeromq.org/page:all#Pros-and-Cons-of-Pub-Sub):
Killing back-chatter is essential to real scalability. With pub-sub, it's how the pattern can map cleanly to the PGM multicast protocol, which is handled by the network switch. In other words, subscribers don't connect to the publisher at all, they connect to a multicast group on the switch, to which the publisher sends its messages.
In order for this to work, the PUB socket will not send back data to the subscribers (at least not in a way visible to the user. The heartbeating problem was discussed in-depth in the guide: http://zguide.zeromq.org/page:all#The-Asynchronous-Client-Server-Pattern
Also, check out the 7/MDP and 18/MDP protocols (http://rfc.zeromq.org/spec:7 -- this is also discussed in the guide) if you want to keep track of clients.
I'm currently writing a project in Python which has a client and a server part. I have troubles with the network communication, so I need to explain some things...
The client mainly does operations the server tells him to and sends the results of the operations back to the server. I need a way to communicate bidirectional on a TCP socket.
Current Situation
I currently use a LineReceiver of the Twisted framework on the server side, and a plain Python socket (and ssl) on client side (because I was unable to correctly implement a Twisted PushProducer). There is a Queue on the client side which gets filled with data which should be sent to the server; a subprocess continuously pulls data from the queue and sends it to the server (see code below).
This scenario works well, if only the client pushes its results to the manager. There is no possibility the server can send data to the client. More accurate, there is no way for the client to receive data the server has sent.
The Problem
I need a way to send commands from the server to the client.
I thought about listening for incoming data in the client loop I use to send data from the queue:
def run(self):
while True:
data = self.queue.get()
logger.debug("Sending: %s", repr(data))
data = cPickle.dumps(data)
self.socket.write(data + "\r\n")
# Here would be a good place to listen on the socket
But there are several problems with this solution:
the SSLSocket.read() method is a blocking one
if there is no data in the queue, the client will never receive any data
Yes, I could use Queue.get_nowait() instead of Queue.get(), but all in all it's not a good solution, I think.
The Question
Is there a good way to achieve this requirements with Twisted? I really do not have that much skills on Twisted to find my way round in there. I don't even know if using the LineReceiver is a good idea for this kind of problem, because it cannot send any data, if it does not receive data from the client. There is only a lineReceived event.
Is Twisted (or more general any event driven framework) able to solve this problem? I don't even have real event on the communication side. If the server decides to send data, it should be able to send it; there should not be a need to wait for any event on the communication side, as possible.
"I don't even know if using the LineReceiver is a good idea for this kind of problem, because it cannot send any data, if it does not receive data from the client. There is only a lineReceived event."
You can send data using protocol.transport.write from anywhere, not just in lineReceived.
"I need a way to send commands from the server to the client."
Don't do this. It inverts the usual meaning of "client" and "server". Clients take the active role and send stuff or request stuff from the server.
Is Twisted (or more general any event driven framework) able to solve this problem?
It shouldn't. You're inverting the role of client and server.
If the server decides to send data, it should be able to send it;
False, actually.
The server is constrained to wait for clients to request data. That's generally the accepted meaning of "client" and "server".
"One to send commands to the client and one to transmit the results to the server. Does this solution sound more like a standard client-server communication for you?"
No.
If a client sent messages to a server and received responses from the server, it would meet more usual definitions.
Sometimes, this sort of thing is described as having "Agents" which are -- each -- a kind of server and a "Controller" which is a single client of all these servers.
The controller dispatches work to the agents. The agents are servers -- they listen on a port, accept work from the controller, and do work. Each Agent must do two concurrent things (usually via the select API):
Monitor a well-known socket on which it will receive work from the one-and-only client.
Do the work (in the background).
This is what Client-Server usually means.
If each Agent is a Server, you'll find lots of libraries will support this. This is the way everyone does it.