ZeroMQs Pub/Sub pattern makes it easy for the server to reply to the right client. However, it is less obvious how to handle communication that cannot be resolved within two steps, i.e. protocols where multiple request/reply pairs are necessary.
For example, consider a case where the client is a worker which asks the server for new work of a specific type, the server replies with the parameters of the work, the client then sends the results and the server checks these and replies whether they were correct.
Obviously, I can't just use recv,send,recv,send sequentially and assume that the first and the second recv are from the same client. What would be the idiomatic way to use multiple recv,send pairs without having to handle messages from other clients inbetween?
Multiple Request/Reply pairs can be made through the use of ZMQ_ROUTER sockets. I recommend using ZMQ_REQ sockets on the clients for bidirectional communication.
If you want to have multiple clients accessing a single server you could use a router socket on the server and request sockets on the clients.
Check out the ZMQ guide's section on this pattern:
http://zguide.zeromq.org/php:chapter3#The-Asynchronous-Client-Server-Pattern
All the clients will interact with the server in the same pattern as Pub/Subs except they will all point at a single server Router socket.
The server on the other hand will receive three messages for every single message a client sends. These parts represent:
Part0 = Identity of connection (random number of which client it is)
Part1 = Empty frame
Part2 = Data of the ZMQ message.
Reference:
http://zguide.zeromq.org/php:chapter3#ROUTER-Broker-and-REQ-Workers
The identity can be used to differentiate between clients accessing on a single port. Repacking the message in the same order and responding on the router socket (with a different data frame) will automatically route it to the client who sent the message.
Related
Right now I'm using socket.io with mandatory websockets as the transport. I'm thinking about moving to raw websockets but I'm not clear on what functionality I will lose moving off of socket.io. Thanks for any guidance.
The socket.io library adds the following features beyond standard webSockets:
Automatic selection of long polling vs. webSocket if the browser does not support webSockets or if the network path has a proxy/firewall that blocks webSockets.
Automatic client reconnection if the connection goes down (even if the server restarts).
Automatic detection of a dead connection (by using regular pings to detect a non-functioning connection)
Message passing scheme with automatic conversion to/from JSON.
The server-side concept of rooms where it's easy to communicate with a group of connected users.
The notion of connecting to a namespace on the server rather than just connecting to the server. This can be used for a variety of different capabilities, but I use it to tell the server what types of information I want to subscribe to. It's like connection to a particular channel.
Server-side data structures that automatically keep track of all connected clients so you can enumerate them at any time.
Middleware architecture built-in to the socket.io library that can be used to implement things like authentication with access to cookies from the original connection.
Automatic storage of the cookies and other headers present on the connection when it was first connected (very useful for identifying what user is connected).
Server-side broadcast capabilities to send a common message to either to all connected clients, all clients in a room or all clients in a namespace.
Tagging of every message with a message name and routing of message names into an eventEmitter so you listen for incoming messages by listening on an eventEmitter for the desired message name.
The ability for either client or server to send a message and then wait for a response to that specific message (a reply feature or request/response model).
I'm new to ZeroMQ and trying to figure out a design issue. My scenario is that I have one or more clients sending requests to a single server. The server will process the requests, do some stuff, and send a reply to the client. There are two conditions:
The replies must go to the clients that sent the request.
If the client disconnects, the server should queue messages for a period of time so that if the client reconnects, it can receive the messages it missed.
I am having a difficult time figuring out the simplest way to implement this.
Things I've tried:
PUB/SUB - I could tag replies with topics to ensure only the subscribers that sent their request (with their topic as their identifier) would receive the correct reply. This takes care of the routing issue, but since the publisher is unaware of the subscribers, it knows nothing about clients that disconnect.
PUSH/PULL - Seems to be able to handle the message queuing issue, but looks like it won't support my plan of having messages sent to specific clients (based on their ID, for example).
ROUTER/DEALER - Design seemed like the solution to both, but all of the examples seem pretty complex.
My thinking right now is continuing with PUB/SUB, try to implement some sort of heartbeat on the client end (allowing the server to detect the client's presence), and when the client no longer sends a heartbeat, it will stop sending messages tagged with its topic. But that seems sub-optimal and would also involve another socket.
Are there any ideas or suggestions on any other ways I might go about implementing this? Any info would be greatly appreciated. I'm working in Python but any language is fine.
To prepare the best proposition for your solution, more data about your application requirements. I have made a little research about your conditions and connnect it with my experience about ZMQ, here I present two possibilities:
1) PUSH/PULL pattern in two direction, bigger impact on scalability, but messages from server will be cached.
Server has one PULL socket to register each client and get all messages from clients. Each message should have client ID to for server knowledge where send response.
For each client - server create PUSH socket to send responses. Socket configuration was sent in register message. You can use also REQ/REP pattern for register clients (assign socket number).
Each client has own PULL socket, which configuration was sent to server in register message.
It means that server with three clients required to (example port numbers in []):
server: 1 x PULL[5555] socket, 3 x PUSH[5560,5561,5562] sockets (+ optional 1 X REQ[5556] socket for registrations, but I think it depends how you prepare client identity)
client: 1 x PUSH[5555] socket, 1 x PULL[5560|5561|5562] (one per client) (+ optional 1 X REP[5556])
You have to connect server to multiple client sockets to send responses but if client disconnects, messages will not lost. Client will get their own messages when it reconnect to their PULL socket. The disadvantage is requirements of creating few PUSH sockets on server side (number of clients).
2) PUB/SUB + PUSH/PULL or REQ/REP, static cocket configuration on server side (only 2), but server has to prepare some mechanism for retransmit or cache messages.
Server create PUB socket and PULL or REQ. Client register it identity by PULL or REQ socket. server will publish all messages to client with this identity as filter. Server use monitor() function on PUB socket to count number of connected and disconnected clients (actions: 'accept' and 'disconnect'). After 'disconnect' action server publish message to all clients to register again. For clients which not re-register, server stop publish messages.
Client create SUB socket and PUSH or REQ to register and send requests.
This solution requires maybe some cache on server side. Client could confirm each message after get it from SUB socket. It is more complicated and have to be connected with your requirement. If you just would like to know that client lost message. Client could send timestamps of last message received from server during registration. If you need guarantee that clients get all messages, you need some cache implementation. Maybe other process which subscribe all messages and delete each confirmed by client.
In this solution server with three clients required to (example port numbers in []):
server: 1 x PUB[5555] socket, 1 x REP or PULL[5560] socket + monitoring PUB socket
client: 1 x SUB[5555] socket and own identity for filter, 1 x REQ or PUSH[5560] socket
About monitoring you could read here: https://github.com/JustinTulloss/zeromq.node#monitoring (NodeJS implementation, but Python will be similar)
I think about other patterns, but I am not sure that ROUTER/DEALER or REQ/REP will cover your requirements. You should read more about patterns, because each of it is better for some solutions. Look here:
official ZMQ guide (a lot of examples and pictures)
easy ROUTER/DEALER example: http://blog.scottlogic.com/2015/03/20/ZeroMQ-Quick-Intro.html
My network has one server and possibly thousands of clients. In most cases, the server sends a command to one of the clients and the client immediately sends a response. But there are cases wherein the client initiates the communication to the server, that is the client sends a status update to the server but then does not need to wait for the server's reply.
I am quite new to zeromq, I would like to ask what kind of pattern suits this kind of communication?
I think The Asynchronous Client/Server Pattern is exactly what you need.
I am using ZEROMQ for distributed messaging application. Need to connect client (DEALER socket) to multiple servers (ROUTER socket on server side). What are my options on CLIENT side ?
Create DEALER socket on client side for each server endpoint (ROUTER socket).
Create only ONE DEALER socket on client side and add multiple endpoints.
I tried option 2 - connecting to multiple endpoints but message always goes to the first connected endpoint. followed following steps:
create DEALER socket
connect to first endpoint
then at run time, add another endpoint to the socket by using socket.connect(endpoint).
Do I need to reconnect?
In DEALER socket, there is no option to send message on a particular endpoint in case it is connected to multiple endpoints.
Any idea?
ZeroMQ encodes certain behaviors into socket types. These mainly deal with:
handling multiple peers
handling undeliverable messages
handling excessive throughput (HWM)
A DEALER socket is one that can connect to multiple peers, and uses LRU (least recently used, aka round-robin) to decide which peer gets each message. If you do not want this behavior, then you do not want a DEALER socket with multiple peers.
If you want to decide which peer gets a message, there are two options for this:
create a DEALER per peer, and send on the appropriate socket
create a single ROUTER connected to all peers, and use IDENTITY prefixes to route messages. You may need to pass IDENTITIES via a side channel, in order to use ROUTER-ROUTER connections.
at run time, add another endpoint to the socket by using socket.connect(endpoint). Do I need to reconnect?
No, you do not need to reconnect. You can add (and remove) peers at any time during the program.
How can a client both subscribe and listen to replies with zeromq?
That is, on the client side I'd like to run a loop which only receives messages and selectively sends requests, and on the server side I'd like to publish most of the time, but to sometimes receive requests as well.
It looks like I'll have to have two different sockets - one for each mode of communication. Is it possible to avoid that and on the server side receive "request notifications" from the socket on a zeromq callback thread while pushing messages to the socket in my own thread?
I am awfully new to ZeroMQ, so I'm not sure if what you want is considered best-practice or not. However, a solution using multiple sockets is pretty simple using zmq_poll.
The basic idea would be to have both client and server:
open a socket for pub/sub
open a socket for req/rep
multiplex sends and receives between the two sockets in a loop using zmq_poll in an infinite loop
process req/rep and pub/sub events within the loop as they occur
Using zmq_poll in this manner with multiple sockets is nice because it avoids threads altogether. The 0MQ guide has a good example here. Note that in that example, they use a timeout of -1 in zmq_poll, which causes it to block until at least one event occurs on any of the multiplexed sockets, but it's pretty common to use a timeout of x milliseconds or something if your loop needs to do some other work as well.
You can use 2 threads to handle the different sockets. The challenge is that if you need to share data between threads, you need to synchronize it in a safe way.
The alternative is to use the ZeroMQ Poller to select the sockets that have new data on them. The process would then use a single loop in the way bjlaub explained.
This could be accomplished using a variation/subset of the Majordomo Protocol. Here's the idea:
Your server will be a router socket, and your clients will be dealer sockets. Upon connecting to the server, the client needs to send some kind of subscription or "hello" message (of your design). The server receives that packet, but (being a router socket) also receives the ID of that client. When the server needs to send something to that client (through your design), it sends it to that ID. The client can send and receive at will, since it is a dealer socket.