I've implemented simple SNMP Traps Collector with the following CommandResponder:
new CommandResponder() {
#Override
public void processPdu(CommandResponderEvent event) {
PDU pdu = event.getPDU();
Trap receivedTrap = snmpHelper.toTrap(pdu);
trapStorage.offer(receivedTrap);
}
};
When I send some traps to the collector with the following Target settings in the sender:
target.setRetries(2);
target.setTimeout(500);
SNMP Collector receives the trap 3 times.
Why? Should I send some response back to sender from the collector in order to prevent the trap from being resend?
There are three types of SNMP notifications (by PDU types):
Trapv1
Trapv2 (since SNMPv2)
Inform (since SNMPv2)
The big problem with TRAPs is that they're unacknowledged so the SNMP Agent does not actually know if the SNMP Manager received it. SNMPv2 PDUs fixed this by introducing the notion of an INFORM, which is nothing more than an acknowledged TRAP. So I believe the agent you deal with sends the same trap three times just to make sure it gets delivered.
To prevent this problem you should consider using INFORMs if the agent supports them. Also it is possible that there is some sort of configuration option on the agent/device side that will allow you to disable this behavior.
Related
I have two programs running in separated sessions. I want to send a event from program A and catch this event in program B.
How can I do that ?
Using class-based events is not really an option, as these cannot be used to communicate between user sessions.
There is a mechanism that you can use to send messages between sessions: ABAP Messaging Channels. You can send anything that is either a text string, a byte string or can be serialised in any of the above.
You will need to create such a message channel using the repository browser SE80 (Create > Connectivity > ABAP Messaging Channel) or with the Eclipse ADT (New > ABAP Messaging Channel Application).
In there, you will have to define:
The message type (text vs binary)
The ABAP programs that are authorised to access the message channel.
The scope of the messages (i.e. do you want to send messages between users? or just for the same user? what about between application servers?)
The message channels work through a publish - subscribe mechanism. You will have to use specialised classes to publish to the channel (inside report A) and to read from the channel (inside report B). In order to wait for a message to arrive once you have subscribed, you can use the statement WAIT FOR MESSAGE CHANNELS.
Example code:
" publishing a message
CAST if_amc_message_producer_text(
cl_amc_channel_manager=>create_message_producer(
i_application_id = 'DEMO_AMC'
i_channel_id = '/demo_text'
i_suppress_echo = abap_true )
)->send( i_message = text_message ).
" subscribing to a channel
DATA(lo_receiver) = NEW message_receiver( ).
cl_amc_channel_manager=>create_message_consumer(
i_application_id = 'DEMO_AMC'
i_channel_id = '/demo_text'
)->start_message_delivery( i_receiver = lo_receiver )
" waiting for a message
WAIT FOR MESSAGING CHANNELS
UNTIL lo_receiver->text_message IS NOT INITIAL
UP TO time SECONDS.
If you want to avoid waiting inside your subscriber report B and to do something else in the meanwhile, then you can wrap the WAIT FOR... statement inside a RFC and call this RFC using the aRFC variant. This would allow you to continue doing stuff inside report B while waiting for an event to happen. When this event happens, the aRFC callback method that you defined inside your report when calling the RFC would be executed.
Inside the RFC, you would simply have the subscription part and the WAIT statement plus an assignment of the message itself to an EXPORTING parameter. In your report, you could have something like:
CALL FUNCTION 'ZMY_AMC_WRAPPER' STARTING NEW TASK 'MY_TASK'
CALLING lo_listener->my_method ON END OF TASK.
" inside your 'listener' class implementation
METHOD my_method.
DATA lv_message TYPE my_message_type.
RECEIVE RESULTS FROM FUNCTION 'ZMY_AMC_WRAPPER'
IMPORTING ev_message = lv_message.
" do something with the lv_message
ENDMETHOD.
You could emulate it by checking in program B if a parameter in SAP memory has changed. program A will set this parameter to send the event. (ie SET/ GET PARAMETER ...). In effect you're polling event in B.
There a a lot of unknown in your desription. For example is the event a one-shot operation or can A send several event ? if so B will have to clear the parameter when done treating the event so that A know it's OK to send a new one (and A will have to wait for the parameter to clear after having set it)...
edited : removed the part about having no messaging in ABAP, since Seban shown i was wrong
I've been working with the Message Hub sample code found at this link: https://github.com/ibm-messaging/message-hub-samples
In particular, I've been trying to increase the throughput of the producer with the Kafka Java console example. I noticed the documentation in this snippet of code:
// Synchronously wait for a response from Message Hub / Kafka on every message produced.
// For high throughput the future should be handled asynchronously.
RecordMetadata recordMetadata = future.get(5000, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
producedMessages++;
I've already turned off the thread sleep found later in the code which also helped increase the throughput, but I was hoping I could get some help on implementing the future asynchronously in this block. Thanks in advance!
you have two basic options for handling the outcome of a produce request asynchronously
1) use the overloaded send with a completion callback argument, which will be invoked asynchronously:
public Future<RecordMetadata> send(ProducerRecord<K, V> record, Callback callback);
if using the callback you may ignore the future.
2) pass the Future to some other thread you have created, and have it inspect the future for completion, while leaving the thread that calls send free to carry on.
I am experimenting with ZeroMQ. And I found it really interesting that in ZeroMQ, it does not matter whether either connect or bind happens first. I tried looking into the source code of ZeroMQ but it was too big to find anything.
The code is as follows.
# client side
import zmq
ctx = zmq.Context()
socket = ctx.socket(zmq.PAIR)
socket.connect('tcp://*:2345') # line [1]
# make it wait here
# server side
import zmq
ctx = zmq.Context()
socket = ctx.socket(zmq.PAIR)
socket.bind('tcp://localhost:2345')
# make it wait here
If I start client side first, the server has not been started yet, but magically the code is not blocked at line [1]. At this point, I checked with ss and made sure that the client is not listening on any port. Nor does it have any open connection. Then I start the server. Now the server is listening on port 2345, and magically the client is connected to it. My question is how does the client know the server is now online?
The best place to ask your question is the ZMQ mailing list, as many of the developers (and founders!) of the library are active there and can answer your question directly, but I'll give it a try. I'll admit that I'm not a C developer so my understanding of the source is limited, but here's what I gather, mostly from src/tcp_connector.cpp (other transports are covered in their respective files and may behave differently).
Line 214 starts the open() method, and here looks to be the meat of what's going on.
To answer your question about why the code is not blocked at Line [1], see line 258. It's specifically calling a method to make the socket behave asynchronously (for specifics on how unblock_socket() works you'll have to talk to someone more versed in C, it's defined here).
On line 278, it attempts to make the connection to the remote peer. If it's successful immediately, you're good, the bound socket was there and we've connected. If it wasn't, on line 294 it sets the error code to EINPROGRESS and fails.
To see what happens then, we go back to the start_connecting() method on line 161. This is where the open() method is called from, and where the EINPROGRESS error is used. My best understanding of what's happening here is that if at first it does not succeed, it tries again, asynchronously, until it finds its peer.
I think the best answer is in zeromq wiki
When should I use bind and when connect?
As a very general advice: use bind on the most stable points in your architecture and connect from the more volatile endpoints. For request/reply the service provider might be point where you bind and the client uses connect. Like plain old TCP.
If you can't figure out which parts are more stable (i.e. peer-to-peer) think about a stable device in the middle, where boths sides can connect to.
The question of bind or connect is often overemphasized. It's really just a matter of what the endpoints do and if they live long — or not. And this depends on your architecture. So build your architecture to fit your problem, not to fit the tool.
And
Why do I see different behavior when I bind a socket versus connect a socket?
ZeroMQ creates queues per underlying connection, e.g. if your socket is connected to 3 peer sockets there are 3 messages queues.
With bind, you allow peers to connect to you, thus you don't know how many peers there will be in the future and you cannot create the queues in advance. Instead, queues are created as individual peers connect to the bound socket.
With connect, ZeroMQ knows that there's going to be at least a single peer and thus it can create a single queue immediately. This applies to all socket types except ROUTER, where queues are only created after the peer we connect to has acknowledge our connection.
Consequently, when sending a message to bound socket with no peers, or a ROUTER with no live connections, there's no queue to store the message to.
When you call socket.connect('tcp://*:2345') or socket.bind('tcp://localhost:2345') you are not calling these methods directly on an underlying TCP socket. All of ZMQ's IO - including connecting/binding underlying TCP sockets - happens in threads that are abstracted away from the user.
When these methods are called on a ZMQ socket it essentially queues these events within the IO threads. Once the IO threads begin to process them they will not return an error unless the event is truly impossible, otherwise they will continually attempt to connect/reconnect.
This means that a ZMQ socket may return without an error even if socket.connect is not successful. In your example it would likely fail without error but then quickly reattempt and succeeded if you were to run the server side of script.
It may also allow you to send messages while in this state (depending on the state of the queue in this situation, rather than the state of the network) and will then attempt to transmit queued messages once the IO threads are able to successfully connect. This also includes if a working TCP connection is later lost. The queues may continue to accept messages for the unconnected socket while IO attempts to automatically resolve the lost connection in the background. If the endpoint takes a while to come back online it should still receive it's messages.
To better explain here's another example
<?php
$pid = pcntl_fork();
if($pid)
{
$context = new ZMQContext();
$client = new ZMQSocket($context, ZMQ::SOCKET_REQ);
try
{
$client->connect("tcp://0.0.0.0:9000");
}catch (ZMQSocketException $e)
{
var_dump($e);
}
$client->send("request");
$msg = $client->recv();
var_dump($msg);
}else
{
// in spawned process
echo "waiting 2 seconds\n";
sleep(2);
$context = new ZMQContext();
$server = new ZMQSocket($context, ZMQ::SOCKET_REP);
try
{
$server->bind("tcp://0.0.0.0:9000");
}catch (ZMQSocketException $e)
{
var_dump($e);
}
$msg = $server->recv();
$server->send("response");
var_dump($msg);
}
The binding process will not begin until 2 seconds later than the connecting process. But once the child process wakes and successfully binds the req/rep transaction will successfully take place without error.
jason#jason-VirtualBox:~/php-dev$ php play.php
waiting 2 seconds
string(7) "request"
string(8) "response"
If I was to replace tcp://0.0.0.0:9000 on the binding socket with tcp://0.0.0.0:2345 it will hang because the client is trying to connect to tcp://0.0.0.0:9000, yet still without error.
But if I replace both with tcp://localhost:2345 I get an error on my system because it can't bind on localhost making the call truly impossible.
object(ZMQSocketException)#3 (7) {
["message":protected]=>
string(38) "Failed to bind the ZMQ: No such device"
["string":"Exception":private]=>
string(0) ""
["code":protected]=>
int(19)
["file":protected]=>
string(28) "/home/jason/php-dev/play.php"
["line":protected]=>
int(40)
["trace":"Exception":private]=>
array(1) {
[0]=>
array(6) {
["file"]=>
string(28) "/home/jason/php-dev/play.php"
["line"]=>
int(40)
["function"]=>
string(4) "bind"
["class"]=>
string(9) "ZMQSocket"
["type"]=>
string(2) "->"
["args"]=>
array(1) {
[0]=>
string(20) "tcp://localhost:2345"
}
}
}
["previous":"Exception":private]=>
NULL
}
If your needing real-time information for the state of underlying sockets you should look into socket monitors. Using socket monitors along with the ZMQ poll allows you to poll for both socket events and queue events.
Keep in mind that polling a monitor socket using ZMQ poll is not similar to polling a ZMQ_FD resource via select, epoll, etc. The ZMQ_FD is edge triggered and therefor doesn't behave the way you would expect when polling network resources, where a monitor socket within ZMQ poll is level triggered. Also, monitor sockets are very light weight and latency between the system event and the resulting monitor event is typically sub microsecond.
I've created a real time game for Google Play Game Services. It's in the later alpha stages right now. I have a question about sendReliableMessage. I've noticed certain cases where the other peer doesn't receive the message. I am aware that there is a callback onRealTimeMessageSent and I have some code in my MainActivity:
#Override
public void onRealTimeMessageSent(int i, int i2, String s) {
if(i== GamesStatusCodes.STATUS_OK)
{
}
else
{
lastMessageStatus=i;
sendToast("lastMessageStatus:"+Integer.toString(lastMessageStatus));
}
}
My games render loop is checking every iteration the value of lastMessageStatus and if there was something other than STATUS_OK I'm painting a T-Rex right now.
My question is is checking the sent status really enough? I also could create source code where the sender has to wait for an Acknowledged message. Each message would be stamped with a UUID and if ack is not received within a timeout then the sender would send the message again? Is an ACK based system necessary to create a persistent connection?
I've noticed certain cases where there is some lag before the opposite peer received the reliable message and I was wondering is there a timeout on the sendReliable message? Google Play Services documentation doesn't seem to indicate in the documentation that there is a timeout at all.
Thank you
Reliable messages are just that, reliable. There are not a lot of use cases for the onRealTimeMessageSent callback for reliable messages because, as you said, it does not guarantee that the recipient has processed the message yet. Only that it was sent.
It may seem annoying, but an ACK-based system is the best way to know for sure that your user has received the message. A UUID is one good way to do this. I have done this myself and found it to work great (although now you have round-trip latency).
As far as timeout, that is not implemented in the RealTime Messaging API. I have personally found round trip latency (send message, receive ACK in callback) to be about 200ms, and I have never found a way to make a message fail to deliver eventually even when purposefully using bad network conditions.
Iam using telosB motes for implementation.
I have come across one of the way for acknowledging the packets,
task void send() {
call PacketAcknowledgements.requestAck(&myMsg);
if(call AMSend.send(1, &myMsg, 0) != SUCCESS) {
post send();
}
}
event void AMSend.sendDone(message_t *msg, error_t error) {
if(call PacketAcknowledgements.wasAcked(msg))
// do something if packet was acked
else
// do something else if packet was not acked (possibly resend)
}
Actually my doubt is, the receiving mote should have to acknowledge the packet or it should have PacketAcknowledgements interface in its application in order to send ACKs.
How this type of acknowledgement works?
And I have checked with my own type of acknowledgement, it works like after receiving the packet the mote acknowledge the packets, if source mote does not receive positive ack in certain time frame then re transmit the packet .
So which is better way of doing?
Please guide & thanks,
In TinyOS acknowledgements are implemented on the lowest communication abstraction level - active message[1]. This means that any component that operates with active messages has a built in support for synchronous acknowledgements.
Actually my doubt is, the receiving mote should have to acknowledge
the packet or it should have PacketAcknowledgements interface in its
application in order to send ACKs.
If you used PacketAcknowledgements.requestAck(&myMsg) to request acknowledgement, then you don't have to write extra code in Receive.receive event handler to process acks as this is done for you by underlying communication layer. All you need to do is wire PacketAcknowledgements interface that your component/module uses to one of the providers (AMSenderC or ActiveMessageC).
How this type of acknowledgement works?
The high level idea is following - calling PacketAcknowledgements.requestAck(&myMsg) sets a flag in a packet header and tells sender component not to signal sendDone event until ack was received (or timed out). When receiver component handles the packet on the other end it reads the flag and sends and ack if requested.
Having said all that, description of your way of acknowledging packets seems very similar to what PacketAcknowledgements offers, so personally I would avoid writing extra code for handling acknowledgements myself and stick with the tools provided.