Had a look over SO but I can't see any threads which address my problem.
I have a conceptual architecture, where there is a central server, which allows clients to connect to it via XML web services. There are 2 types of client, producers and consumers.
The system is built in C# using WCF WebServices, specifically IIS webservices (though this can be changed if necessary)
Producers publish information to the server, and consumers consume information uploaded by a producer.
The conundrum... Consumers need to somehow subscribe to an event on the server, which is thrown when a producer updates the web server, downloading new content and displaying it if necessary.
I don't want to use a polling mechanism, but can't see a way to subsribe to server events in a client.
Very basic architecture... Workstations could be the same PC running 2 services, or they could be 2 separate PC's on different networks. They don't about each other, so all comms are done through the webservice.
This application is for a messaging network, based on radio paging.
Check out this Pub/Sub messaging implementation by the master himself. Depending on what type of WCF binding you can use, it might be helpful to you.
Related
I read that Signalr on Azure requires a service bus implementation (e.g. https://github.com/SignalR/SignalR/wiki/Azure-service-bus) for scalability purpose.
However, my server only makes callbacks to a single client (the caller):
// Invoke a method on the calling client
Caller.addMessage(data);
If don't need Signalr's broadcasting functionality, is an underlaying service bus still necessary?
The Service Bus dependency is not something specific to Azure. Any time you have multiple servers in play, some of your signalR clients will have created their connection to a specific server. If you want to keep multiple servers in sync something needs to handle the server to server real time communication. The pub-sub model of service bus lines up with this requirement quite well.
dfowleR lists a specific case of this in the comments. Make sure you read down that far!
If you are running on a single server (without the sla on Azure) signalR will work just fine on a Cloud Service Web Role as well as the new Azure Web Sites. I did a screencast on this simple scenario that does not take on a service bus dependency, but only runs on a single server.
In order to support the load balance scenario, is it possible to enstablish a "server to server" SignalR PersistConnection between multiple instances (ie on Azure) ?
If so, we can use a SQL Azure Table where all instances register at startup, so newest can connect to previous ones.
I'm developing a multiple client / multiple server program in C#, and before I got down to the nitty gritty, I was wondering if anyone has ever worked on a similar project and might be able to share their tips / ideas for implementation.
The servers will sit on many PCs, and listen for incoming connections from clients (Or should the Servers broadcast, and the clients listen?).
When a client starts, it should populate a list of potential server IP addresses automatically.
When a server closes, the client should remove that server from it's list.
When a new server starts, the clients should be notified and have it added to their list.
A server may also act as a client, and should be able to see itself, as well as all other servers.
A message sent from a client to the server, that affects the server, should broadcast the change to all connected clients.
Should my server be a Windows Service? What advantages/disadvantages does that present?
Any ideas on how I might go about getting started on this? I've been looking into UDP Multicast, and LAN Scans. I'm using C# and .NET 4.0
EDIT: Found this: http://code.google.com/p/lidgren-network-gen3/ Does anyone have any experience with it and can recommend/not recommend it?
I would suggest NetPeerTcpBinding WCF communications to create a Peer Mesh. Clients and Servers would all join a mesh using a Peer resolver. You can use PNRP or create a custom peer resolver (.Net actually provides you with an implementation called CustomPeerResolverService). See Peer To Peer Networking documentation.
Also you can implement a Discovery service using DiscoveryProxy. With a discovery service, services can announce their endpoints. The discovery service can then service find requests (see FindCriteria) to return endpoints that match the requests. This is referred to as Managed Discovery. Another mode is Ad Hoc Discovery. Each service will announce their endpoints via UDP and discovery clients will probe the network for these endpoints.
I have actually implemented a Managed Discovery service in combination with Peer 2 Peer WCF networking to provide a redundant mesh of discovery services that all share published service endpoints via P2P. Using Managed Discovery I have found performs far better as Ad Hoc Discovery using UDP probing is slower and has some limitations crossing some network boundaries while Managed Discovery leverages a centralized repository of announced service endpoints.
Either/both technologies I think can lead to your solution.
So is this effectively a peer to peer style network (almost like bittorrent), where all servers are clients, but not all clients are servers.
and the requirements are every client should hold a list of all other servers (which are, in turn, clients).
The problem lies in getting the server IPs to the clients in the first place. You can use a master server that has a fixed DNS to act as a kind of tracker, which all of the servers check in to, and the clients check periodically.
Another option (or an additional method) is to use a peer exchange style system, where each of the clients and servers use UDP broadcast packets over a local network to discover each other and then transfer the servers they know of, kind of like a routing protocol. However if the PCs are spread out over a non local network such as the internet, there's little chance that they will ever discover each other on their own, making this method only useful when used in conjunction with other methods of finding servers. Also, you will probably have to deal with router UPnP to allow clients to connect to each other through each others router NAT, so this method is probably too complex for the gains you get. (However, if you're just on a LAN, this is all you need!)
A third option (and again, this sounds a lot like torrent technology), is to use Distributed Hash Tables to store information about the IPs of your servers in the cloud, without having to rely on a central master server.
I have had a shot at a project like this before (a pure P2P, server-less messaging system), but could never get it to work. Without a huge amount of peers, or a master server to track all of the other servers, it is very difficult to reliably retrieve the IPs of all the servers.
The wording of the question doesn't necessarily do the issue justice...
I've got a client UI sitting on a local box with and a background windows service to support it while it performs background functions.
The client UI is just the presentation layer and the windows service does all the hard hitting action... so there needs to be communication between the two of them. After spending a while on google and reading best practices, I decided to make the service layer using WCF and named pipes.
The client UI is the WCF client and the windows service acts as the WCF host (hosting locally only) to support the client.
So this works fine, as it should. The client UI can pass data to the WCF host. But my question is, how do I make that data useful? I've got a couple engines running on the windows service/WCF host but the WCF host is completely unaware of the existence of any background engines. I need the client's communications requests to be able to interact with those engines.
Does anybody have any idea of a good design pattern or methodology on how to approach facilitating communication between a WCF host and running threads?
I think that your best bet is to have some static properties or methods that can be used to interchange data between the service threads/processes and the WCF service.
Alternatively, the way that we approach this is through the use of a database where the client or wcf service queues up requests for the service to respond to and the service, when it is available, updates the database with the responses to those requests. The client then polls the database (through WCF) on a regular basis to retrieve the results of any outstanding requests.
For example, if the client needs a report generated, we fire off a request through WCF and WCF creates a report generation request in the database.
The service responsible for generating reports regularly polls this table and, when it finds a new entry, it spins off a new thread/process that generates the report.
When the report has completed (either successfully or in failure), the service updates the database table with the result.
Meanwhile, the client asks the WCF service on a regular basis if any of the submitted reports have completed yet. The WCF service in turn polls the table for any requests that have been completed, but not been delivered to the client yet, gathers the information from them, and returns them to the client.
This mechanism allows us to do a couple of things:
1) We can scale the number of services processing these requests across multiple physical/virtual machines as the workload increases.
2) A given service can support numerous clients.
3) Through the WCF interface, we can extend this support to any client platform that we choose to support (web, win, tablet, phone, etc).
Forgot to mention:
Just because we elect to use a database doesn't mean that you have to in order to implement this pattern. You can easily implement the same functionality by creating a static request collection that the WCF service and worker service access in much the same way that we use the database.
You will just need to be very careful about properly obtaining and releasing locks on the static properties to avoid cross-thread collisions or deadlocks.
I'm just beginning WCF and so I don't understand exactly how the abstraction works. Can I write a WCF service and install the same thing on multiple machines, and have them communicate via some ID? I'm looking at sending/receiving commands, and continuous real-time data being sent between devices.
Any service you write can be installed on any number of machines - no problem there.
Any machine or code you run on those machines can also act as a client at the same time, calling other services, yes, absolutely, that's totally possible.
You need to define your service contract as an interface and in that service contract you describe the operations (service methods). Once that service is deployed, anyone can act as a client to that service and send it messages.
And of course, you can have an app (ASP.NET, Winforms whatever) that is both simultaneously - it offers services, but also acts as a client to other services.
Hope that helps a bit!
I'm about to write a "server" application that is responsible to talk with external hardware. The application shall handle requests from clients. The clients send a message to the server, and if the server is busy with doing stuff with the hardware the new messages shall be stored in a queue that will be processed later.
The client shall also be able to cancel a request (if it is in the server's queue.). When the server application is finished with the hardware it shall be able to send the result back to the client that requested the job.
The server and client applications may or may not be on the same PC. All development is done in .NET (C#) 2005.
What is the best way to solve this communication problem?
MSMQ? SOAP? WCF? Remoting? Other?
Assuming you can use .NET 3.0 or greater then you probably want to WCF as the communications channel - the interface is consistent but it will allow you to use an appropriate transport mechanism depending on where the client and server are in relation to each other - so you can choose to use SOAP or MSMQ or a binary format or others as appropriate (and can roll your own if needed). It also covers the need for two way communication.
Queuing the messages at the server should probably be regarded as a separate problem - especially given the need to remove queued messages.
If clients and server processes are on the same machine, I think named pipes will give you the fastest raw byte transfer rate.
If the processes are across different machines, you'd need to use sockets-based approach.
Remoting is reportedly very slow. Based on the target OSes that you're planning to deploy the solution on, you could have options like WCF et al. However, the overhead of these protocols is something you may want to look at while deciding.
Remoting
If all development is done in .NET 2005, Remoting is the best way to go.
MSMQ would make some sense, though there are then security and deployment considerations. You could look at a service bus (such s NServiceBus or MassTransit) and there's also SQL Server Service Broker that could help (and can also be used by a service bus as the transport).
WCF would be another thing to look at, however that's really the across-network transport, so you'd probably still want the WCF calls to put a message on the server queue.
I don't recommend remoting, because it's hard to maintain a separation of concerns, and before you know it you're developing a really chatty interface without realising it. Remote calls are expensive in relative terms, so you should be trying to keep the messages fairly coarse-grained. WCF would be my recommendation. Not least because you can set it up to use a HTTP transport and avoid a lot of deployment and security headache.
The .NET Framework provides several ways to communicate with objects in different application domains, each designed with a particular level of expertise and flexibility in mind. For example, the growth of the Internet has made XML Web services an attractive method of communication, because XML Web services are built on the common infrastructure of the HTTP protocol and SOAP formatting, which uses XML. These are public standards, and can be used immediately with current Web infrastructures without worrying about additional proxy or firewall issues.
Not all applications should be built using some form of XML Web service, however, if only because of the performance issues related to using SOAP serialization over an HTTP connection.
Choosing Communication Options in .NET helps you decide which form of interobject communication you want for your application.