Книга: Distributed operating systems
2.3.7. Implementing the Client-Server Model
2.3.7. Implementing the Client-Server Model
In the preceding sections we have looked at four design issues, addressing, blocking, buffering, and reliability, each with several options. The major alternatives are summarized in Fig. 2-14. For each item we have listed three possibilities. Simple arithmetic shows that there are 34=81 combinations. Not all of them are equally good. Nevertheless, just in this one area (message passing), the system designers have a considerable amount of leeway in choosing a set (or multiple sets) of communication primitives.
Item | Option 1 | Option 2 | Option 3 |
---|---|---|---|
Addressing | Machine number | Sparse process addresses | ASCII names looked up via server |
Blocking | Blocking primitives | Nonblocking with copy to kernel | Nonblocking with interrupt |
Buffering | Unbuffered, discarding unexpected messages | Unbuffered, temporarily keeping unexpected messages | Mailboxes |
Reliability | Unreliable | Request-Ack-Reply Ack | Request-Reply-Ack |
Fig. 2-14. Four design issues for the communication primitives and some of the principal choices available.
While the details of how message passing is implemented depend to some extent on which choices are made, it is still possible to make some general comments about the implementation, protocols, and software. To start with, virtually all networks have a maximum packet size, typically a few thousand bytes at most. Messages larger than this must be split up into multiple packets and sent separately. Some of these packets may be lost or garbled, and they may even arrive in the wrong order. To deal with this problem, it is usually sufficient to assign a message number to each message, and put it in each packet belonging to the message, along with a sequence number giving the order of the packets.
However, an issue that still must be resolved is the use of acknowledgements. One strategy is to acknowledge each individual packet. Another one is to acknowledge only entire messages. The former has the advantage that if a packet is lost, only that packet has to be retransmitted, but it has the disadvantage of requiring more packets on the network. The latter has the advantage of fewer packets, but the disadvantage of a more complicated recovery when a packet is lost (because a client timeout requires retransmitting the entire message). The choice depends largely on the loss rate of the network being used.
Another interesting issue is the underlying protocol used in client-server communication. Figure 2-15 shows six packet types that are commonly used to implement client-server protocols. The first one is the REQ packet, used to send a request message from a client to a server. (For simplicity, for the rest of this section we will assume that each message fits in a single packet.) The next one is the REP packet that carries results back from the server to the client. Then comes the ACK packet, which is used in reliable protocols to confirm the correct receipt of a previous packet.
Code | Packet type | From | To | Description |
---|---|---|---|---|
REQ | Request | Client | Server | The client wants service |
REP | Reply | Server | Client | Reply from the server to the client |
ACK | Ack | Either | Other | The previous packet arrived |
AYA | Are you alive? | Client | Server | Probe to see if the server has crashed |
IAA | I am alive | Server | Client | The server has not crashed |
TA | Try again | Server | Client | The server has no room |
AU | Address unknown | Server | Client | No process is using this address |
Fig. 2-15. Packet types used in client-server protocols.
The next four packet types are not essential, but often useful. Consider the situation in which a request has been sent successfully from the client to the server and the acknowledgement has been received. At this point the client's kernel knows that the server is working on the request. But what happens if no answer is forthcoming within a reasonable time? Is the request really that complicated, or has the server crashed? To be able to distinguish these two cases, the AYA packet is sometimes provided, so the client can ask the server what is going on. If the answer is IAA, the client's kernel knows that all is well and just continues to wait. Even better is a REP packet, of course. If the AYA does not generate any response, the client's kernel waits a short interval and tries again. If this procedure fails more than a specified number of times, the client's kernel normally gives up and reports failure back to the user. The AYA and IAA packets can also be used even in a protocol in which REQ packets are not acknowledged. They allow the client to check on the server's status.
Finally, we come to the last two packet types, which are useful in case a REQ packet cannot be accepted. There are two reasons why this might happen, and it is important for the client's kernel to be able to distinguish them. One reason is that the mailbox to which the request is addressed is full. By sending this packet back to the client's kernel, the server's kernel can indicate that the address is valid, and the request should be repeated later. The other reason is that the address does not belong to any process or mailbox. Repeating it later will not help.
This situation can also arise when buffering is not used and the server is not currently blocked in a receive call. Since having the server's kernel forget that the address even exists in between calls to receive can lead to problems, in some systems a server can make a call whose only function is to register a certain address with the kernel. In that way, at least the kernel can tell the difference between an address to which no one is currently listening, and one that is simply wrong. It can then send TA in the former case and AU in the latter.
Fig. 2-16. Some examples of packet exchanges for client-server communication.
Many packet sequences are possible. A few common ones are shown in Fig. 2-16. In Fig. 2-16(a), we have the straight request/reply, with no acknowledgement. In Fig. 2-16(b), we have a protocol in which each message is acknowledged individually. In Fig. 2-16(c), we see the reply acting as the acknowledgement, reducing the sequence to three packets. Finally, in Fig. 2-16(d), we see a nervous client checking to see if the server is still there.
- Implementing Quotas
- Тестирование Web-сервиса XML с помощью WebDev.WebServer.exe
- InterBase Super Server для Windows
- Каталог BIN в SuperServer
- Минимальный состав сервера InterBase SuperServer
- InterBase Classic Server под Linux
- Каталог BIN в InterBase Classic Server для Linux
- SuperServer
- Classic vs SuperServer
- Рекомендации по выбору архитектуры: Classic или SuperServer?
- Улучшенное время отклика для версии SuperServer
- Эффективное взаимодействие процессов архитектуры Classic Server