|
Modify my reply.
thanks for your kind.
|
|
|
|
|
No problem, I'm glad you have joined the list of people who contribute to the site.
Have fun 
I must get a clever new signature for 2011.
|
|
|
|
|
Hey there! Been a while… took a little break from bugging you all with questions  .
Anyways I was working on a server/client project so I could just become familiar with socket programming before I took a little "programming" break. Now that I'm going to continue it I had a few questions about trying what I'm attempting to do.
What I want is to create a Agent-Based monitoring application. So the idea would be to have the server sitting out on the WAN listening for connections from the agents. The agents will upload data and will perform more actions in the future.
So what is the best way to handle multiple connections? The connections could range anywhere from 1 to 750 agents that checkin every 30 seconds. Some products that come in mind is Labtech, Kaseya, and Zenith. I was using async sockets and see tons of people out there just creating new threads on a new connection, but surely this will kill the server when you get many connections.
Should I be using a thread pool (haven't dove into how to do this yet), creating new threads, async sockets, or what?
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
maybe...
best way use thread pool, and each socket response object use async call back...
or anybody suggest more better solution. sorry..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting.. never seen that used.. I will have to check more into that.
|
|
|
|
|
For a checkin every 30 seconds you might want to consider UDP or reconnecting each time.
The recommended way to do TCP is using the asynchronous methods; as you correctly guess creating lots of threads can cause problems. A lot of people (including myself!) start out that way because it's easy, it's how you did it in Java and the documentation for the asynchronous sockets is not that great.
What's likely to be the biggest problem in this design is that you will be using up to 750 sockets. That will be a bigger hit than the use of .Net objects with such a low load.
A quick search turned up this excellent article on high performance use of the asynchronous socket methods.
|
|
|
|
|
I haven't read that link you put up yet but I kind of skimmed through it. It appears that it is using libraries newer than .NET 2.0. I should of mentioned that I wanted to stick with nothing above .NET 2.0. Now for stuff like Labtech I really think they are using a web service (which I do not want to use). I can't really use UDP because the agent has to be able to retrieve data back from that server when it checks in. This is because the server will not really have access to any agent directly since they are on different networks. So the agent has to be the one to start the connection and accept data back.
|
|
|
|
|
I believe that NAT forwarding automatically makes 'return packet' UDP datagrams work as you'd expect, so as long as the agent started the UDP 'connection' it should be ok. I am not an expert on UDP though.
Asynchronous sockets are in .Net 2.0.
|
|
|
|
|
Only one comment - if you've got 750 clients, make sure they connect, do whatever they have to do and disconnect immediately afterwards (or force disconnect them). Holding lots of idle sockets open will kill scalability. This is the approach webservers use. And for lots of short lived connections, the threadpool is definitely your friend. When you accept a socket through a TcpListener or similar pass the socket to a method and throw it on the threadpool.
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
So only handle so many connections at one time… but do not reject any? It almost sounds like if I don't get the calculation right I could end up in a loop (meaning some agent actions not being performed in the correct amount of time before it tries to checkin again)
|
|
|
|
|
hi everyone, I use the below approach to close all the processes. Althoug it works well, it can't close hidden process. This is a cyber cafe client side program and games like Knightonline, Metin2 etc. can't be closed this way.
We know that windows closes everything when ending the session. So, to achieve the same goal, is it possible to end the session and then log in back without any user intervention?
Process[] allprcs = Process.GetProcesses();<br />
<br />
foreach (Process p in allprcs)<br />
{<br />
p.Kill();
}
|
|
|
|
|
No, it is not possible to end the session and log back in without user intervention.
Well, that's not entirely true. You'd have to setup a "admin login" when the machine logs back in as a user that is put in a special registry location. You put the username and password into this registry location and Windows will use it to log the console session back in when Windows starts. This is a HORRIBLE idea. Why? Because the username and password has to be in clear text (unencrypted).
The problem with your code is that you're trying to stop all processes, and you cannot do that. You can only stop processes that you have permissions to stop. Even an admin level account cannot stop all processes. Processes that run under system level account or are critical to running Windows cannot be stopped. The only way to end them is to shutdown Windows.
|
|
|
|
|
teknolog123 wrote: So, to achieve the same goal, is it possible to end the session and then log in back without any user intervention?
Thinking about Dave's comment; how about bluntly restarting the entire machine (assuming that they log on automatic)?
--edit;
I'm not that good in keeping track of the time; I'd appreciate it if the software would give a warning that it's about to close down and to save/commit my work 
I are Troll 
|
|
|
|
|
Two comments:
1.
for your code to be a bit successful, it should not kill itself; so at least check Process p isn't your own process!
2.
it sounds to me you need a Windows service; it could keep track of the processes that get created by the user, and then it could kill those, and their dependants, whenever you must.
Don't ask me for more details, I have none to offer; I'm not in to this kind of computer (ab)use at all.
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles] Nil Volentibus Arduum
Please use <PRE> tags for code snippets, they preserve indentation, improve readability, and make me actually look at the code.
|
|
|
|
|
hi
something very Strange in Webservice and windows-ce connection....
i have Webservice in my computer that stay on `C:\inetpub\wwwroot\WS_TEST` called `WS_TEST`
my IP is `11.22.33.44`
the connection is: `http://11.22.33.44/WS_TEST/service1.asmx`
in my Windows-CE i have this connection: (see that the IP not equal)
http://99.88.77.66/WS_TEST/service1.asmx
and the windows-ce **connect successfully** to the Webservice - how ?
how to do that only same IP will connect successfully ?
thanks in advance
|
|
|
|
|
How is this a C# problem?
You would probably be better asking this in either the Web Development Forum[^] or the Mobile Forum[^].
Henry Minute
Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain
Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?"
“I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.”
I wouldn't let CG touch my Abacus!
When you're wrestling a gorilla, you don't stop when you're tired, you stop when the gorilla is.
|
|
|
|
|
hi
how to force IIS_IUSER full control by making setup & deploy project ?
i work on C# visual-studio 2008
thanks in advance
|
|
|
|
|
Full control of what?? Nevermind, it really doesn't matter since that is a horribly bad idea...
Do NOT do it! Why? Because that is the defualt account ALL websites on the server use unless otherwise configured (which is rare).
But, that's exactly what you have to do. Your website should run under its own account specially configured to run the site and give just enough permissions to it to what what it needs to do. You do NOT give it Full Control of anything.
|
|
|
|
|
Don't, is is a very bad plan, it breaks open the security on the server.
Create a new account and give it only the permissions it requires. How you grant these depends on what you atually want to grant, and the OS more than likely).
|
|
|
|
|
For your setup project, IIS_USER does not need "full control" because the setup program runs with a system account. It can place all the files in their correct location, set user rights as required so that thereafter IIS_USER will have appropriate access to them. When IIS_USER needs write access, use special folders for that purpose, do not add write access to the installation directory of your web application!
|
|
|
|
|
Can anyone help me with code for paypal and backup recovery in c#.
Does the paypal fuction properly in south africa?
Is it possible to link windows application with web applicatin,if so,how?
|
|
|
|
|
mageba wrote: Can anyone help me with code for paypal and backup recovery in c#.
Please read the forum FAQs, don't ask for code. State what you have done, and what isn't working, otherwise everyone will assume you've done nothing and you'll get replies like this.
mageba wrote: Does the paypal fuction properly in south africa?
Probably, if you Google your question you'll get an answer more quickly than here, but we do have a few members from/in SA
mageba wrote: Is it possible to link windows application with web applicatin,if so,how?
What do you mean by "link" ? They can certainly use the same database, and they can certainly consume remote procedures such as web services. How do you want them linked exactly.
|
|
|
|
|
mageba wrote: Does the paypal fuction properly in south africa?
Well, you live there, you tell us!
I must get a clever new signature for 2011.
|
|
|
|
|
What? That's research, that is! 5!
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together.
Manfred R. Bihy: "Looks as if OP is learning resistant."
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
