The first time I skimmed the zeromq docs, I assumed that the sender high watermark was there to ensure that the sender did not get too far ahead of the receiver. Now that I'm looking at it more carefully, it seems that this can't possibly be true, since the wire protocol doesn't have any concept of ACKs so the sender can't know whether the receiver is keeping up or is way behind. After staring at jeromq code in the debugger for way too long, it seems that the watermark is actually a purely "within-same-process" mechanism to ensure that the application thread that's writing to the ZMQ socket does not get too far ahead of the background thread that's responsible for taking messages off the ZMQ socket and writing bytes into the OS's TCP socket.
It seems like a rather fringe thing to worry about, relative to how much attention it's given in the docs. It doesn't even seem like a great way to control memory usage, because if you have a high water mark of 10, then 15 messages of 2kb each is not allowed, but 5 messages of 100 megs each is allowed, so things are still pretty un-predictable.
Am I understanding all this correctly or am I hopelessly confused.
I think that another thing that says it's not to prevent a sender getting too far ahead of the receiver is that if one set the HWM to 0, that's taken as infinity not actually zero. For 0 to mean zero, it'd have to have some too-ing and fro-ing with the receiver to know whether the socket was actually empty throughout the whole connection.
I wish that 0 did mean zero, because then ZeroMQ could implement both Actor Model and Communicating Sequential Processes architectures. But it doesn't, so it can't.
Possible Uses
None the less, a potential useful aspect is related to the fact that ZeroMQ is Actor Model. Suppose one were sending messages, and it kind of mattered whether or not those messages got through. In the situation where the link has collapsed (something that ZeroMQ's heartbeat can tell you, pretty quickly), messages already sent are potentially lost forever. However, if the HWM is being used to throttle the rate of messages being sent by the application, then the number of lost messages when the link breaks is minimised.
Obviously with CSP - the perfect architecture so far as I'm concerned! - you lose no messages (because the acts of sending and receiving are an execution rendezvous; the send won't complete until the receive has also completed).
What I have done in the past is to queue up messages for transmission in the sending application, sending them as and when the socket / connection can ingest them. Having the outbound message queue in the sending application's control (instead of in ZeroMQ's control) means that sender state can potentially get ahead of the transfer of messages, but still recover easily from a network connection fault.
I have written systems where a sender has a choice of two pathways to send messages through - prime and spare - and if the link to prime has collapsed the sender continues to send to spare instead. Having queued the messages inside the application and not in the socket allows the sender's state can get ahead of the actual transfer of messages, knowing that if a link goes down it's still got all the unsent outboud messages that have been generated in the meantime. These can then be directed at spare instead, without having to rewind the sender's internal state (which could be really tricky) to the last known successful transfer.
Something like that, anyway.
"Why not send to both prime and spare anyway?" is a valid question. Well, sometimes things can be complicated...
I'm writing a logging feature that registers socket events. The problem I'm having is that even though I have the time of the event in the MSG structure that I get when I call PeekMessage, the subsequent call to DispatchMessage will end up being handled by WindowProc, which does not receive the time as a parameter.
The "solution" I'm using to log times consists in detecting socket events in the main loop of my Windows application where PeekMessage occurs.
Which would be the proper way to do this? I would rather prefer not having to add logging specific logic to an otherwise general routine.
Use GetMessageTime() in your socket message handler:
Retrieves the message time for the last message retrieved by the GetMessage() function. The time is a long integer that specifies the elapsed time, in milliseconds, from the time the system was started to the time the message was created (that is, placed in the thread's message queue).
Compared to the time field of the MSG structure:
The time at which the message was posted.
I know that JMS messages are immutable. But I have a task to solve, which requires rewrite message in queue by entity id. Maybe there is a problem with system design, help me please.
App A sends message (with entity id = 1) to JMS. App B checks for new messages every minute.
App A might send many messages with entity id = 1 in a minute, but App B should see just the last one.
Is it possible?
App A should work as fast as possible, so I don't like the idea to perform removeMatchingMessages(String selector) before new message push.
IMO the approach is flawed.
Even if you did accept clearing off the queue by using a message selector to remove all messages where entity id = 1 before writing the new message, timing becomes an issue: it's possible that whichever process writes the out-dated messages would need to complete before the new message is written, some level of synchronization.
The other solution I can think of is reading all messages before processing them. Every minute, the thread takes the messages and bucketizes them. An earlier entity id = 1 message would be replaced by a later one, so that at the end you have a unique set of messages to process. Then you process them. Of course now you might have too many messages in memory at once, and transactionality gets thrown out the window, but it might achieve what you want.
In this case you could actually be reading the messages as they come in and bucketizing them, and once a minute just run your processing logic. Make sure you synchronize your buckets so they aren't changed out from under you as new messages come in.
But overall, not sure it's going to work
I am writing a Message Handler for an ebXML message passing application. The message follow the Request-Response Pattern. The process is straightforward: The Sender sends a message, the Receiver receives the message and sends back a response. So far so good.
On receipt of a message, the Receiver has a set Time To Respond (TTR) to the message. This could be anywhere from seconds to hours/days.
My question is this: How should the Sender deal with the TTR? I need this to be an async process, as the TTR could be quite long (several days). How can I somehow count down the timer, but not tie up system resources for large periods of time. There could be large volumes of messages.
My initial idea is to have a "Waiting" Collection, to which the message Id is added, along with its TTR expiry time. I would then poll the collection on a regular basis. When the timer expires, the message Id would be moved to an "Expired" Collection and the message transaction would be terminated.
When the Sender receives a response, it can check the "Waiting" collection for its matching sent message, and confirm the response was received in time. The message would then be removed from the collection for the next stage of processing.
Does this sound like a robust solution. I am sure this is a solved problem, but there is precious little information about this type of algorithm. I plan to implement it in C#, but the implementation language is kind of irrelevant at this stage I think.
Thanks for your input
Depending on number of clients you can use persistent JMS queues. One queue per client ID. The message will stay in the queue until a client connects to it to retrieve it.
I'm not understanding the purpose of the TTR. Is it more of a client side measure to mean that if the response cannot be returned within certain time then just don't bother sending it? Or is it to be used on the server to schedule the work and do what's required now and push the requests with later response time to be done later?
It's a broad question...
The documentation for the Win32 API PulseEvent() function (kernel32.dll) states that this function is “… unreliable and should not be used by new applications. Instead, use condition variables”. However, condition variables cannot be used across process boundaries like (named) events can.
I have a scenario that is cross-process, cross-runtime (native and managed code) in which a single producer occasionally has something interesting to make known to zero or more consumers. Right now, a well-known named event is used (and set to signaled state) by the producer using this PulseEvent function when it needs to make something known. Zero or more consumers wait on that event (WaitForSingleObject()) and perform an action in response. There is no need for two-way communication in my scenario, and the producer does not need to know if the event has any listeners, nor does it need to know if the event was successfully acted upon. On the other hand, I do not want any consumers to ever miss any events. In other words, the system needs to be perfectly reliable – but the producer does not need to know if that is the case or not. The scenario can be thought of as a “clock ticker” – i.e., the producer provides a semi-regular signal for zero or more consumers to count. And all consumers must have the correct count over any given period of time. No polling by consumers is allowed (performance reasons). The ticker is just a few milliseconds (20 or so, but not perfectly regular).
Raymen Chen (The Old New Thing) has a blog post pointing out the “fundamentally flawed” nature of the PulseEvent() function, but I do not see an alternative for my scenario from Chen or the posted comments.
Can anyone please suggest one?
Please keep in mind that the IPC signal must cross process boundries on the machine, not simply threads. And the solution needs to have high performance in that consumers must be able to act within 10ms of each event.
I think you're going to need something a little more complex to hit your reliability target.
My understanding of your problem is that you have one producer and an unknown number of consumers all of which are different processes. Each consumer can NEVER miss any events.
I'd like more clarification as to what missing an event means.
i) if a consumer started to run and got to just before it waited on your notification method and an event occurred should it process it even though it wasn't quite ready at the point that the notification was sent? (i.e. when is a consumer considered to be active? when it starts or when it processes its first event)
ii) likewise, if the consumer is processing an event and the code that waits on the next notification hasn't yet begun its wait (I'm assuming a Wait -> Process -> Loop to Wait code structure) then should it know that another event occurred whilst it was looping around?
I'd assume that i) is a "not really" as it's a race between process start up and being "ready" and ii) is "yes"; that is notifications are, effectively, queued per consumer once the consumer is present and each consumer gets to consume all events that are produced whilst it's active and doesn't get to skip any.
So, what you're after is the ability to send a stream of notifications to a set of consumers where a consumer is guaranteed to act on all notifications in that stream from the point where it acts on the first to the point where it shuts down. i.e. if the producer produces the following stream of notifications
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
and consumer a) starts up and processes 3, it should also process 4-0
if consumer b) starts up and processes 5 but is shut down after 9 then it should have processed 5,6,7,8,9
if consumer c) was running when the notifications began it should have processed 1-0
etc.
Simply pulsing an event wont work. If a consumer is not actively waiting on the event when the event is pulsed then it will miss the event so we will fail if events are produced faster than we can loop around to wait on the event again.
Using a semaphore also wont work as if one consumer runs faster than another consumer to such an extent that it can loop around to the semaphore call before the other completes processing and if there's another notification within that time then one consumer could process an event more than once and one could miss one. That is you may well release 3 threads (if the producer knows there are 3 consumers) but you cant ensure that each consumer is released just the once.
A ring buffer of events (tick counts) in shared memory with each consumer knowing the value of the event it last processed and with consumers alerted via a pulsed event should work at the expense of some of the consumers being out of sync with the ticks sometimes; that is if they miss one they will catch up next time they get pulsed. As long as the ring buffer is big enough so that all consumers can process the events before the producer loops in the buffer you should be OK.
With the example above, if consumer d misses the pulse for event 4 because it wasn't waiting on its event at the time and it then settles into a wait it will be woken when event 5 is produced and since it's last processed counted is 3 it will process 4 and 5 and then loop back to the event...
If this isn't good enough then I'd suggest something like PGM via sockets to give you a reliable multicast; the advantage of this would be that you could move your consumers off onto different machines...
The reason PulseEvent is "unreliable" is not so much because of anything wrong in the function itself, just that if your consumer doesn't happen to be waiting on the event at the exact moment that PulseEvent is called, it'll miss it.
In your scenario, I think the best solution is to manually keep the counter yourself. So the producer thread keeps a count of the current "clock tick" and when a consumer thread starts up, it reads the current value of that counter. Then, instead of using PulseEvent, increment the "clock ticks" counter and use SetEvent to wake all threads waiting on the tick. When the consumer thread wakes up, it checks it's "clock tick" value against the producer's "clock ticks" and it'll know how many ticks have elapsed. Just before it waits on the event again, it can check to see if another tick has occurred.
I'm not sure if I described the above very well, but hopefully that gives you an idea :)
There are two inherent problems with PulseEvent:
if it's used with auto-reset events, it releases one waiter only.
threads might never be awaken if they happen to be removed from the waiting queue due to APC at the moment of the PulseEvent.
An alternative is to broadcast a window message and have any listener have a top-level message -only window that listens to this particular message.
The main advantage of this approach is that you don't have to block your thread explicitly. The disadvantage of this approach is that your listeners have to be STA (can't have a message queue on an MTA thread).
The biggest problem with that approach would be that the processing of the event by the listener will be delayed with the amount of time it takes the queue to get to that message.
You can also make sure you use manual-reset events (so that all waiting threads are awaken) and do SetEvent/ResetEvent with some small delay (say 150ms) to give a bigger chance for threads temporarily woken by APC to pick up your event.
Of course, whether any of these alternative approaches will work for you depends on how often you need to fire your events and whether you need the listeners to process each event or just the last one they get.
If I understand your question correctly, it seems like you can simply use SetEvent. It will release one thread. Just make sure it is an auto-reset event.
If you need to allow multiple threads, you could use a named semaphore with CreateSemaphore. Each call to ReleaseSemaphore increases the count. If the count is 3, for example, and 3 threads wait on it, they will all run.
Events are more suitable for communications between the treads inside one process (unnamed events). As you have described, you have zero ore more clients that need to read something interested. I understand that the number of clients changes dynamically. In this case, the best chose will be a named pipe.
Named Pipe is King
If you need to just send data to multiple processes, it’s better to use named pipes, not the events. Unlike auto-reset events, you don't need own pipe for each of the client processes. Each named pipe has an associated server process and one or more associated client processes (and even zero). When there are many clients, many instances of the same named pipe are automatically created by the operating system for each of the clients. All instances of a named pipe share the same pipe name, but each instance has its own buffers and handles, and provides a separate conduit for client/server communication. The use of instances enables multiple pipe clients to use the same named pipe simultaneously. Any process can act as both a server for one pipe and a client for another pipe, and vice versa, making peer-to-peer communication possible.
If you will use a named pipe, there would be no need in the events at all in your scenario, and the data will have guaranteed delivery no matter what happens with the processes – each of the processes may get long delays (e.g. by a swap) but the data will be finally delivered ASAP without your special involvement.
On The Events
If you are still interested in the events -- the auto-reset event is king! ☺
The CreateEvent function has the bManualReset argument. If this parameter is TRUE, the function creates a manual-reset event object, which requires the use of the ResetEvent function to set the event state to non-signaled. This is not what you need. If this parameter is FALSE, the function creates an auto-reset event object, and system automatically resets the event state to non-signaled after a single waiting thread has been released.
These auto-reset events are very reliable and easy to use.
If you wait for an auto-reset event object with WaitForMultipleObjects or WaitForSingleObject, it reliably resets the event upon exit from these wait functions.
So create events the following way:
EventHandle := CreateEvent(nil, FALSE, FALSE, nil);
Wait for the event from one thread and do SetEvent from another thread. This is very simple and very reliable.
Don’t' ever call ResetEvent (since it automatically reset) or PulseEvent (since it is not reliable and deprecated). Even Microsoft has admitted that PulseEvent should not be used. See https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms684914(v=vs.85).aspx
This function is unreliable and should not be used, because only those threads will be notified that are in the "wait" state at the moment PulseEvent is called. If they are in any other state, they will not be notified, and you may never know for sure what the thread state is. A thread waiting on a synchronization object can be momentarily removed from the wait state by a kernel-mode Asynchronous Procedure Call, and then returned to the wait state after the APC is complete. If the call to PulseEvent occurs during the time when the thread has been removed from the wait state, the thread will not be released because PulseEvent releases only those threads that are waiting at the moment it is called.
You can find out more about the kernel-mode Asynchronous Procedure Calls at the following links:
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms681951(v=vs.85).aspx
http://www.drdobbs.com/inside-nts-asynchronous-procedure-call/184416590
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=75
We have never used PulseEvent in our applications. As about auto-reset events, we are using them since Windows NT 3.51 (although they appeared in the first 32-bit version of NT - 3.1) and they work very well.
Your Inter-Process Scenario
Unfortunately, your case is a little bit more complicated. You have multiple threads in multiple processes waiting for an event, and you have to make sure that all the threads did in fact receive the notification. There is no other reliable way other than to create own event for each consumer. So, you will need to have as many events as are the consumers. Besides that, you will need to keep a list of registered consumers, where each consumer has an associated event name. So, to notify all the consumers, you will have to do SetEvent in a loop for all the consumer events. This is a very fast, reliable and cheap way. Since you are using cross-process communication, the consumers will have to register and de-register its events via other means of inter-process communication, like SendMessage. For example, when a consumer process registers itself at your main notifier process, it sends SendMessage to your process to request a unique event name. You just increment the counter and return something like Event1, Event2, etc, and creating events with that name, so the consumers will open existing events. When the consumer de-registers – it closes the event handle that it opened before, and sends another SendMessage, to let you know that you should CloseHandle too on your side to finally release this event object. If the consumer process crashes, you will end up with a dummy event, since you will not know that you should do CloseHandle, but this should not be a problem - the events are very fast and very cheap, and there is virtually no limit on the kernel objects - the per-process limit on kernel handles is 2^24. If you are still concerned, you may to the opposite – the clients create the events but you open them. If they won’t open – then the client has crashed and you just remove it from the list.