Is it possible, or even practical to create a node program (or sub program/loop) that executes independently of the connected clients.
So in my specific use case, I would like to make a mulitplayer game, where each turn a player preforms actions. And at the end of that turn those actions are computed. Is it possible to perform those computations at a specific time regardless of the client/players connecting?
I assume this involves the use of threads somewhere.
Possibly an easier solution would be to compute the outcome when it is observed, but this could cause difficulties if it has an influence in with other entities. But this problem has been a curiosity of mine for a while.
Well, basically, the easiest solution would probably to run the computation onto a cluster. This is spawning a thread who's running independent task and communicating with messages with the main thread.
If you wish however to run a completely separate process (I probably wouldn't, but it is an option), this can happen too. You then just need a communication protocol between the two process. Usually this would be handled by a messaging or a task queue system. A popular queue solving this issue is RabbitMQ.
If the computations each turn is not to heavy you could solve the issue with a simple setTimeout()
function turnCalculations(){
//do loads of stuff every 30 seconds
}
setTimout(turnCalculations,30000)
//normal node server stuff here
This would do the turn calculations every 30 seconds regardless of users connected, but if the calculations take to long they might block your server.
Related
In nodejs the main critics are based on its single threaded event loop model.
The biggest disadvantage of nodejs is that one can not perform CPU intensive tasks in the application. For demonstration purpose, lets take the example of a while loop (which is perhaps analogous to a db function returning hundred thousand of records and then processing those records in nodejs.)
while(1){
x++
}
Such sort of the code will block the main stack and consequently all other tasks waiting in the Event Queue will never get the chance to be executed. (and in a web Applications, new users will not be able to connect to the App).
However, one could possibly use module like cluster to leverage the multi core system and partially solve the above issue. The Cluster module allows one to create a small network of separate processes which can share server ports, which gives the Node.js application access to the full power of the server. (However, one of the biggest disadvantage of using Cluster is that the state cannot be maintained in the application code).
But again there is a high possibility that we would end up in the same situation (as described above) again if there is too much server load.
When I started learning the Go language and had a look at its architecture and goroutines, I thought it would possibly solve the problem that arises due to the single threaded event loop model of nodejs. And that it would probably avoid the above scenario of CPU intensive tasks, until I came across this interesting code, which blocks all of the GO application and nothing happens, much like a while loop in nodejs.
func main() {
var x int
threads := runtime.GOMAXPROCS(0)
for i := 0; i < threads; i++ {
go func() {
for { x++ }
}()
}
time.Sleep(time.Second)
fmt.Println("x =", x)
}
//or perhaps even if we use some number that is just greater than the threads.
So, the question is, if I have an application which is load intensive and there would be lot of CPU intensive tasks as well, I could probably get stuck in the above sort of scenario. (where db returns numerous amount of rows and then the application need to process and modify some thing in those rows). Would not the incoming users would be blocked and so would all other tasks as well?
So, how could the above problem be solved?
P.S
Or perhaps, the use cases I have mentioned does not make much of the sense? :)
Currently (Go 1.11 and earlier versions) your so-called
tight loop will indeed clog the code.
This would happen simply because currently the Go compiler
inserts code which does "preemption checks" («should I yield
to the scheduler so it runs another goroutine?») only in
prologues of the functions it compiles (almost, but let's not digress).
If your loop does not call any function, no preemption checks
will be made.
The Go developers are well aware of this
and are working on eventually alleviating this issue.
Still, note that your alleged problem is a non-issue in
most real-world scenarious: the code which performs long
runs of CPU-intensive work without calling any function
is rare and far in between.
In the cases, where you really have such code and you have
detected it really makes other goroutines starve
(let me underline: you have detected that through profiling—as
opposed to just conjuring up "it must be slow"), you may
apply several techniques to deal with this:
Insert calls to runtime.Gosched() in certain key points
of your long-running CPU-intensive code.
This will forcibly relinquish control to another goroutine
while not actually suspending the caller goroutine (so it will
run as soon as it will have been scheduled again).
Dedicate OS threads for the goroutines running
those CPU hogs:
Bound the set of such CPU hogs to, say, N "worker goroutines";
Put a dispatcher in front of them (this is called "fan-out");
Make sure that N is sensibly smaller than runtime.GOMAXPROCS
or raise the latter so that you have those N extra threads.
Shovel units of work to those dedicated goroutines via the dispatcher.
I'm working on what's basically a highly-available distributed message-passing system. The system receives messages from someplace over HTTP or TCP, perform various transformations on it, and then sends it to one or more destinations (also using TCP/HTTP).
The system has a requirement that all messages sent to a given destination are in-order, because some messages build on the content of previous ones. This limits us to processing the messages sequentially, which takes about 750ms per message. So if someone sends us, for example, one message every 250ms, we're forced to queue the messages behind each other. This eventually introduces intolerable delay in message processing under high load, as each message may have to wait for hundreds of other messages to be processed before it gets its turn.
In order to solve this problem, I want to be able to parallelize our message processing without breaking the requirement that we send them in-order.
We can easily scale our processing horizontally. The missing piece is a way to ensure that, even if messages are processed out-of-order, they are "resequenced" and sent to the destinations in the order in which they were received. I'm trying to find the best way to achieve that.
Apache Camel has a thing called a Resequencer that does this, and it includes a nice diagram (which I don't have enough rep to embed directly). This is exactly what I want: something that takes out-of-order messages and puts them in-order.
But, I don't want it to be written in Java, and I need the solution to be highly available (i.e. resistant to typical system failures like crashes or system restarts) which I don't think Apache Camel offers.
Our application is written in Node.js, with Redis and Postgresql for data persistence. We use the Kue library for our message queues. Although Kue offers priority queueing, the featureset is too limited for the use-case described above, so I think we need an alternative technology to work in tandem with Kue to resequence our messages.
I was trying to research this topic online, and I can't find as much information as I expected. It seems like the type of distributed architecture pattern that would have articles and implementations galore, but I don't see that many. Searching for things like "message resequencing", "out of order processing", "parallelizing message processing", etc. turn up solutions that mostly just relax the "in-order" requirements based on partitions or topics or whatnot. Alternatively, they talk about parallelization on a single machine. I need a solution that:
Can handle processing on multiple messages simultaneously in any order.
Will always send messages in the order in which they arrived in the system, no matter what order they were processed in.
Is usable from Node.js
Can operate in a HA environment (i.e. multiple instances of it running on the same message queue at once w/o inconsistencies.)
Our current plan, which makes sense to me but which I cannot find described anywhere online, is to use Redis to maintain sets of in-progress and ready-to-send messages, sorted by their arrival time. Roughly, it works like this:
When a message is received, that message is put on the in-progress set.
When message processing is finished, that message is put on the ready-to-send set.
Whenever there's the same message at the front of both the in-progress and ready-to-send sets, that message can be sent and it will be in order.
I would write a small Node library that implements this behavior with a priority-queue-esque API using atomic Redis transactions. But this is just something I came up with myself, so I am wondering: Are there other technologies (ideally using the Node/Redis stack we're already on) that are out there for solving the problem of resequencing out-of-order messages? Or is there some other term for this problem that I can use as a keyword for research? Thanks for your help!
This is a common problem, so there are surely many solutions available. This is also quite a simple problem, and a good learning opportunity in the field of distributed systems. I would suggest writing your own.
You're going to have a few problems building this, namely
2: Exactly-once delivery
1: Guaranteed order of messages
2: Exactly-once delivery
You've found number 1, and you're solving this by resequencing them in redis, which is an ok solution. The other one, however, is not solved.
It looks like your architecture is not geared towards fault tolerance, so currently, if a server craches, you restart it and continue with your life. This works fine when processing all requests sequentially, because then you know exactly when you crashed, based on what the last successfully completed request was.
What you need is either a strategy for finding out what requests you actually completed, and which ones failed, or a well-written apology letter to send to your customers when something crashes.
If Redis is not sharded, it is strongly consistent. It will fail and possibly lose all data if that single node crashes, but you will not have any problems with out-of-order data, or data popping in and out of existance. A single Redis node can thus hold the guarantee that if a message is inserted into the to-process-set, and then into the done-set, no node will see the message in the done-set without it also being in the to-process-set.
How I would do it
Using redis seems like too much fuzz, assuming that the messages are not huge, and that losing them is ok if a process crashes, and that running them more than once, or even multiple copies of a single request at the same time is not a problem.
I would recommend setting up a supervisor server that takes incoming requests, dispatches each to a randomly chosen slave, stores the responses and puts them back in order again before sending them on. You said you expected the processing to take 750ms. If a slave hasn't responded within say 2 seconds, dispatch it again to another node randomly within 0-1 seconds. The first one responding is the one we're going to use. Beware of duplicate responses.
If the retry request also fails, double the maximum wait time. After 5 failures or so, each waiting up to twice (or any multiple greater than one) as long as the previous one, we probably have a permanent error, so we should probably ask for human intervention. This algorithm is called exponential backoff, and prevents a sudden spike in requests from taking down the entire cluster. Not using a random interval, and retrying after n seconds would probably cause a DOS-attack every n seconds until the cluster dies, if it ever gets a big enough load spike.
There are many ways this could fail, so make sure this system is not the only place data is stored. However, this will probably work 99+% of the time, it's probably at least as good as your current system, and you can implement it in a few hundred lines of code. Just make sure your supervisor is using asynchronous requests so that you can handle retries and timeouts. Javascript is by nature single-threaded, so this is slightly trickier than normal, but I'm confident you can do it.
I've been doing a fair amount of work with Node lately, trying to build a system which has certain characteristics, one of which is non-blocking / parallelism - a Node strong suit, as I understand it.
What I don't fully understand is when a separate thread is spun off to handle some processing. I'm pretty sue this happens on a function call/call back, but certainly not all of them.
In my specific case, it's an Express based app. At app start-up it does several things including instantiating a RabbitMQ based "bus", an object with a method which will write to the bus (objA) and object which will subscribe to the bus and process messages coming across it (objB).
objA will write to the bus inside an express callback
app.put((req,res) => {
objA.methodWhichWritesToBus();
});
I believe at this point, that objA.methodWhichWritesToBus is executed in a background/worker thread - whatever you call it, not on the main event loop.
Is that the only point at which this sort of thing happens? methodWhichWritesToBus is IO instensive (it calls an elastic search service on another box and brings back 10's to 100's of thousands of records) with lots of chained promises etc., but none of that gets split off, does it?
How about the fact that the obj on which the method is called is instantiated outside the Express callback - does that affect the parallel-ism?
Finally, are the ways to effect/force a method etc to "run in the background"?
I've been noodling this, testing it, for awhile now but all on one machine so it's difficult to tell what's going on.
Who can clarify this for me?
Pre-answer: this is a topic best learned by going and reading, doing coding exercises to solidify your understanding, and working with the technology in a significant way. You're not going to "get it" based on a Q&A format. That said...
What I don't fully understand is when a separate thread is spun off to handle some processing.
Never, sort of. "Processing" as in the computation that happens in your javascript program, happens in the main event loop thread. End of story. However, waiting on I/O to come back from the OS is not considered "processing" so there are various queues managed by node and the OS to track pending I/O requests and invoke callbacks when data is ready. There are a handful of threads node uses internally to manage this stuff with the OS, but from your program's perspective, those threads are irrelevant. Your program can ask node to do some IO, then your program keeps running in parallel, and when the I/O is done, node will eventually invoke the callback in the main event loop and you can process the results.
I believe at this point, that objA.methodWhichWritesToBus is executed in a background/worker thread - whatever you call it, not on the main event loop.
You call it "asynchronously" and it happens whenever you do IO, including filesystem calls, networking, or child processes. Which is to say, quite a lot.
How about the fact that the obj on which the method is called is instantiated outside the Express callback - does that affect the parallel-ism?
Nope.
Finally, are the ways to effect/force a method etc to "run in the background"?
Generally I/O is done asynchronously by default, so no you don't normally need to force anything to run in the background. It's baked into the node design by way of the node core APIs themselves. However, there are ways to delay synchronous processing to a future event loop using setImmediate, setTimeout, or process.nextTick. I explain these in some detail in my blog post setTimeout and friends.
More precisely, all networking is asynchronous. End of story. Specifically, the APIs in node core that are available are all asynchronous, and there's simply no synchronous API available in node. For filesystem IO and child processes, there are both synchronous and asynchronous APIs, but the synchronous APIs must only be used under special limited circumstances, and if you don't know confidently that it's OK in this specific case to make a synchronous IO API call, you should use the asynchronous API so you don't break the lynchpin that makes node perform as it does.
I am currently working with three matlab functions to make them run near simultaneously in single Matlab session(as I known matlab is single-threaded), these three functions are allocated with individual tasks, it might be difficult for me to explain all the detail of each function here, but try to include as much information as possible.
They are CONTROL/CAMERA/DATA_DISPLAY tasks, The approach I am using is creating Timer objects to have all the function callback continuously with different callback period time.
CONTROL will sending and receiving data through wifi with udp port, it will check the availability of package, and execute callback constantly
CAMERA receiving camera frame continuously through tcp and display it, one timer object T1 for this function to refresh the capture frame
DATA_DISPLAY display all the received data, this will refresh continuously, so another timer T2 for this function to refresh the display
However I noticed that the timer T2 is blocking the timer T1 when it is executed, and slowing down the whole process. I am working on a system using a multi-core CPU and I would expect MATLAB to be able to execute both timer objects in parallel taking advantage of the computational cores.
Through searching the parallel computing toolbox in matlab, it seems not able to deal with infinite loop or continuous callback, since the code will not finish and display nothing when execute, probably I am not so sure how to utilize this toolbox
Or can anyone provide any good idea of re-structuring the code into more efficient structure.
Many thanks
I see a problem using the parallel computing toolbox here. The design implies that the jobs are controlled via your primary matlab instance. Besides this, the primary instance is the only one with a gui, which would require to let your DISPLAY_DATA-Task control everything. I don't know if this is possible, but it would result in a very strange architecture. Besides this, inter process communication is not the best idea when processing large data amounts.
To solve the issue, I would use Java to display your data and realise the 'DISPLAY_DATA'-Part. The connection to java is very fast and simple to use. You will have to write a small java gui which has a appendframe-function that allows your CAMERA-Job to push new data. Obviously updating the gui should be done parallel without blocking.
I've been learning some lua for game development. I heard about coroutines in other languages but really came up on them in lua. I just don't really understand how useful they are, I heard a lot of talk how it can be a way to do multi-threaded things but aren't they run in order? So what benefit would there be from normal functions that also run in order? I'm just not getting how different they are from functions except that they can pause and let another run for a second. Seems like the use case scenarios wouldn't be that huge to me.
Anyone care to shed some light as to why someone would benefit from them?
Especially insight from a game programming perspective would be nice^^
OK, think in terms of game development.
Let's say you're doing a cutscene or perhaps a tutorial. Either way, what you have are an ordered sequence of commands sent to some number of entities. An entity moves to a location, talks to a guy, then walks elsewhere. And so forth. Some commands cannot start until others have finished.
Now look back at how your game works. Every frame, it must process AI, collision tests, animation, rendering, and sound, among possibly other things. You can only think every frame. So how do you put this kind of code in, where you have to wait for some action to complete before doing the next one?
If you built a system in C++, what you would have is something that ran before the AI. It would have a sequence of commands to process. Some of those commands would be instantaneous, like "tell entity X to go here" or "spawn entity Y here." Others would have to wait, such as "tell entity Z to go here and don't process anymore commands until it has gone here." The command processor would have to be called every frame, and it would have to understand complex conditions like "entity is at location" and so forth.
In Lua, it would look like this:
local entityX = game:GetEntity("entityX");
entityX:GoToLocation(locX);
local entityY = game:SpawnEntity("entityY", locY);
local entityZ = game:GetEntity("entityZ");
entityZ:GoToLocation(locZ);
do
coroutine.yield();
until (entityZ:isAtLocation(locZ));
return;
On the C++ size, you would resume this script once per frame until it is done. Once it returns, you know that the cutscene is over, so you can return control to the user.
Look at how simple that Lua logic is. It does exactly what it says it does. It's clear, obvious, and therefore very difficult to get wrong.
The power of coroutines is in being able to partially accomplish some task, wait for a condition to become true, then move on to the next task.
Coroutines in a game:
Easy to use, Easy to screw up when used in many places.
Just be careful and not use it in many places.
Don't make your Entire AI code dependent on Coroutines.
Coroutines are good for making a quick fix when a state is introduced which did not exist before.
This is exactly what java does. Sleep() and Wait()
Both functions are the best ways to make it impossible to debug your game.
If I were you I would completely avoid any code which has to use a Wait() function like a Coroutine does.
OpenGL API is something you should take note of. It never uses a wait() function but instead uses a clean state machine which knows exactly what state what object is at.
If you use coroutines you end with up so many stateless pieces of code that it most surely will be overwhelming to debug.
Coroutines are good when you are making an application like Text Editor ..bank application .. server ..database etc (not a game).
Bad when you are making a game where anything can happen at any point of time, you need to have states.
So, in my view coroutines are a bad way of programming and a excuse to write small stateless code.
But that's just me.
It's more like a religion. Some people believe in coroutines, some don't. The usecase, the implementation and the environment all together will result into a benefit or not.
Don't trust benchmarks which try to proof that coroutines on a multicore cpu are faster than a loop in a single thread: it would be a shame if it were slower!
If this runs later on some hardware where all cores are always under load, it will turn out to be slower - ups...
So there is no benefit per se.
Sometimes it's convenient to use. But if you end up with tons of coroutines yielding and states that went out of scope you'll curse coroutines. But at least it isn't the coroutines framework, it's still you.
We use them on a project I am working on. The main benefit for us is that sometimes with asynchronous code, there are points where it is important that certain parts are run in order because of some dependencies. If you use coroutines, you can force one process to wait for another process to complete. They aren't the only way to do this, but they can be a lot simpler than some other methods.
I'm just not getting how different they are from functions except that
they can pause and let another run for a second.
That's a pretty important property. I worked on a game engine which used them for timing. For example, we had an engine that ran at 10 ticks a second, and you could WaitTicks(x) to wait x number of ticks, and in the user layer, you could run WaitFrames(x) to wait x frames.
Even professional native concurrency libraries use the same kind of yielding behaviour.
Lots of good examples for game developers. I'll give another in the application extension space. Consider the scenario where the application has an engine that can run a users routines in Lua while doing the core functionality in C. If the user needs to wait for the engine to get to a specific state (e.g. waiting for data to be received), you either have to:
multi-thread the C program to run Lua in a separate thread and add in locking and synchronization methods,
abend the Lua routine and retry from the beginning with a state passed to the function to skip anything, least you rerun some code that should only be run once, or
yield the Lua routine and resume it once the state has been reached in C
The third option is the easiest for me to implement, avoiding the need to handle multi-threading on multiple platforms. It also allows the user's code to run unmodified, appearing as if the function they called took a long time.