I'm doing a testbed client/server system (dotnet 4.0) that will eventually have two components communicating via streams across some transport medium, but at the moment has the two communicating via a single MemoryStream. Never used them before, and I made the assumption I could be writing and reading at the same time. However, because there's only one 'cursor' I can't be reading from the stream until it's finished writing and I can seek() back to zero.
The named pipe stuff supports full duplex operation, but only if I set one object up as the server and have the other connect to it- not something I'm wanting to do at this point.
I can get the result I want by creating a byte buffer and having two MemoryStream instances pointing at that buffer, but that falls over when I reach the end of the buffer and get an exception because the memory stream can't be expanded.
I could probably do this by creating a file instead of the array and having two FileStream instances, but that seems a somewhat messy way of doing it. And if left running would result in a full disk since nothing would be pruning the data that's been read.
What I'm after is a stream that doesn't support seek() or position, maintains separate read and write pointers, buffers data that's written to it and discards it sometime after it's been read. Feels like reinventing the wheel to roll my own. Surely such a thing is already around somewhere?
Related
Currently I'm working on an app that reads the stream from Twitter API and parses it into objects. At the moment I read the stream and use ReadObject(...) from DataContractJsonSerializer to make my objects and I write them to a buffer in memory (don't worry I read them from that buffer asynchronously and I keep a maximum of 100 objects before I start overwriting old ones).
This works great!! HOWEVER: Do I have the guarantee that the reading/writing will keep up with the actual stream. If this is not the case; what can I do about this?
You could use a BlockingCollection for the buffer, that way instead of overwriting old entries, an attempt to add more than 100 items will block instead while your reader catches up.
From what I understand, you will not have that guarantee. If you've got a limit of 100 buffered objects, you may get to the point where that buffer is full of new objects, a new one comes in and overwrites something. Really it's a trade off, the more you allow in your buffer the greater security of not falling behind, versus using more RAM.
The only alternative I can see is somehow writing your own scheduler proritising the processing of the buffered objects over reading new ones from the stream.
We are using protobuf-net for serialization and deserialization of messages in an application whose public protocol is based on Google Protocol Buffers. The library is excellent and covers our all requirements except for this one: we need to find out the serialized message length in bytes before the message is actually serialized.
The question has already been asked a year and a half ago and according to Marc, the only way to do this was to serialize to a MemoryStream and read the .Length property afterwards. This is not acceptable in our case, because MemoryStream allocates a byte buffer behind the scenes and we have to avoid this.
This line from the same response gives us hope that it might be possible after all:
If you clarify what the use-case is, I'm sure we can make it easily
available (if it isn't already).
Here is our use case. We have messages whose size varies between several bytes and two megabytes. The application pre-allocates byte buffers used for socket operations and for serializing / deserializing and once the warm-up phase is over, no additional buffers can be created (hint: avoding GC and heap fragmentation). Byte buffers are essentially pooled. We also want to avoid copying bytes between buffers / streams as much as possible.
We have come up with two possible strategies and both of them require message size upfront:
Use (large) fixed-size byte buffers and serialize all messages that can fit into one buffer; send the content of the buffer using Socket.Send. We have to know when the next message cannot fit into the buffer and stop serializing. Without message size, the only way to achieve this is to wait for an exception to occur during Serialize.
Use (small) variable size byte buffers and serialize each message into one buffer; send the content of the buffer using Socket.Send. In order to check out the byte buffer with appropriate size from the pool, we need to know how much bytes does a serialized message have.
Because the protocol is already defined (we cannot change this) and requires message length prefix to be Varint32, we cannot use SerializeWithLengthPrefix method.
So is it possible to add a method that estimates a message size without serialization into a stream? If it is something that does not fit into the current feature set and roadmap of the library, but is doable, we are interested into extending the library ourselves. We are also looking for alternative approaches, if there are any.
As noted, this is not immediately available, as the code intentionally tries to do a single pass over the data (especially IEnumerable<T> etc). Depending on your data, though, it might already be doing a moderate amount of copying, to allow for the fact that sub-messages are also length-prefixed, so might need juggling. This juggling can be greatly reduced by using the "grouped" sub-format internally in the message, as groups allow forwards-only construction without track-backs.
So is it possible to add a method that estimates a message size without serialization into a stream?
An estimate is next to useless; since there is no terminator, it needs to be exact. Ultimately, the sizes are a little hard to predict without actually doing it. There was some code in v1 for size prediction, but the single-pass code currently seems preferred, and in most cases the buffer overhead is nominal (there is code in place to re-use the internal buffers so that it doesn't spend all the time allocating buffers for small messages).
If your message internally is forwards-only (grouped), then a cheat might be to serialize to a fake stream that measures, but drops all the data; you'd end up serializing twice, however.
Re:
and requires message length prefix to be Varint32, we cannot use SerializeWithLengthPrefix method
I'm not quite sure I see the relationship there - it allows a range of formats etc to be used here; perhaps if you can be more specific?
Re copying data around - an idea I played with here is that of using sub-normal forms for the length prefix. For example, it might be that in most cases 5 bytes is plenty, so rather than juggle, it could leave 5 bytes, and then simply overwrite without condensing (since the octet 10000000 still means "zero and continue", even if it is redundant). This would still need to be buffered (to allow backfill), but would not require and movement of the data.
A final simple idea would be simply: serialize to a FileStream; then write the file length, and the file data. It trades memory usage for IO, obviously.
Is there an difference between a Queue and a Stream in C#?
The question should be: do they even have anything in common besides both offering some sort of interface to retrieve bytes from?
A queue Queue<byte> is just that, a FIFO queue of bytes, main functionality is to enqueue or dequeue a single byte value at a time - there is no random access. You usually use a queue as part of a data structure or algorithm (i.e. breadth first search in a tree comes to mind). All data in a queue is stored in memory.
A stream on the other hand is an abstract representation of a byte stream usually obtained from a file, memory, network or other source - there is always an underlying source or target.This source doesn't have to be in memory, i.e. a network or file stream will allow you to read from or write to a file or network - so a stream is the main way to get bytes from A to B.
A queue has to stores bytes, a stream doesn't. Big difference.
Im not a C# (or even .NET) guy at all, and hopefully someone will provide a more detailed answer, but..
I think its pretty clear that Queue and Stream are quite different. I understandwhy you'd ask, but even a quick peek at the API shows a lot of differences.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.io.stream.aspx
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.collections.queue.aspx
Foremost among these differences is that a Queue is part of Collections package and Stream is part of IO
EDIT - typed Queue is probably more applicable, as shown with other poster
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/7977ey2c.aspx
C++ and C# both use the word stream to name many classes.
C++: iostream, istream, ostream, stringstream, ostream_iterator, istream_iterator...
C#: Stream, FileStream,MemoryStream, BufferedStream...
So it made me curious to know, what does stream mean?
What are the characteristics of a stream?
When can I use this term to name my classes?
Is this limited to file I/O classes only?
Interestingly, C doesn’t use this word anywhere, as far as I know.
Many data-structures (lists, collections, etc) act as containers - they hold a set of objects. But not a stream; if a list is a bucket, then a stream is a hose. You can pull data from a stream, or push data into a stream - but normally only once and only in one direction (there are exceptions of course). For example, TCP data over a network is a stream; you can send (or receive) chunks of data, but only in connection with the other computer, and usually only once - you can't rewind the Internet.
Streams can also manipulate data passing through them; compression streams, encryption streams, etc. But again - the underlying metaphor here is a hose of data. A file is also generally accessed (at some level) as a stream; you can access blocks of sequential data. Of course, most file systems also provide random access, so streams do offer things like Seek, Position, Length etc - but not all implementations support such. It has no meaning to seek some streams, or get the length of an open socket.
There's a couple different meanings. #1 is what you probably mean, but you might want to look at #2 too.
In the libraries like those you mentioned, a "stream" is just an abstraction for "binary data", that may or may not be random-access (as opposed to data that is continuously generated, such as if you were writing a stream that generated random data), or that may be stored anywhere (in RAM, on the hard disk, over a network, in the user's brain, etc.). They're useful because they let you avoid the details, and write generic code that doesn't care about the particular source of the stream.
As a more general computer science concept, a "stream" is sometimes thought of (loosely) as "finite or infinite amount of data". The concept is a bit difficult to explain without an example, but in functional programming (like in Scheme), you can turn a an object with state into a stateless object, by treating the object's history as a "stream" of changes. (The idea is that an object's state may change over time, but if you treat the object's entire life as a "stream" of changes, the stream as a whole never changes, and you can do functional programming with it.)
From I/O Streams (though in java, the meaning is the same in C++ / C#)
An I/O Stream represents an input
source or an output destination. A
stream can represent many different
kinds of sources and destinations,
including disk files, devices, other
programs, and memory arrays.
Streams support many different kinds
of data, including simple bytes,
primitive data types, localized
characters, and objects. Some streams
simply pass on data; others manipulate
and transform the data in useful ways.
No matter how they work internally,
all streams present the same simple
model to programs that use them: A
stream is a sequence of data. A
program uses an input stream to read
data from a source, one item at a
time.
In C#, the streams you have mentioned derive from the abstract base class Stream. Each implementation of this base class has a specific purpose.
For example, FileStream supports read / write operations on a file, while the MemoryStream works on an in-memory stream object. Unlike the FileStream and MemoryStream classes, BufferedStream class allows the user to buffer the I/O.
In addition to the above classes, there are several other classes that implement the Stream class. For a complete list, refer the MSDN documentation on Stream class.
Official terms and explanations aside, the word stream itself was taken from the "real life" stream - instead of water, data is transferred from one place to another.
Regarding question you asked and still wasn't ansewered, you can name your own classes in names that contain stream but only if you implement some sort of new stream it will have correct meaning.
In C functions defined in <stdio.h> operate on streams.
Section 7.19.2 Streams in C99 discusses how they behave, though not what they are, apart from "an ordered sequence of characters".
The rationale gives more context in the corresponding section, starting with:
C inherited its notion of text streams from the UNIX environment in which it was born.
So that's where the concept comes from.
I am writing a client for a server that typically sends data as strings in 500 or less bytes. However, the data will occasionally exceed that, and a single set of data could contain 200,000 bytes, for all the client knows (on initialization or significant events). However, I would like to not have to have each client running with a 50 MB socket buffer (if it's even possible).
Each set of data is delimited by a null \0 character. What kind of structure should I look at for storing partially sent data sets?
For example, the server may send ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUV\0WXYZ\0123!\0. I would want to process ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUV, WXYZ, and 123! independently. Also, the server could send ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ1234567890LOL123HAHATHISISREALLYLONG without the terminating character. I would want that data set stored somewhere for later appending and processing.
Also, I'm using asynchronous socket methods (BeginSend, EndSend, BeginReceive, EndReceive) if that matters.
Currently I'm debating between List<Byte> and StringBuilder. Any comparison of the two for this situation would be very helpful.
Read the data from the socket into a buffer. When you get the terminating character, turn it into a message and send it on its way to the rest of your code.
Also, remember that TCP is a stream, not a packet. So you should never assume that you will get everything sent at one time in a single read.
As far as buffers go, you should probably only need one per connection at most. I'd probably start with the max size that you reasonably expect to receive, and if that fills, create a new buffer of a larger size - a typical strategy is to double the size when you run out to avoid churning through too many allocations.
If you have multiple incoming connections, you may want to do something like create a pool of buffers, and just return "big" ones to the pool when done with them.
You could just use a List<byte> as your buffer, so the .NET framework takes care of automatically expanding it as needed. When you find a null terminator you can use List.RemoveRange() to remove that message from the buffer and pass it to the next layer up.
You'd probably want to add a check and throw an exception if it exceeds a certain length, rather than just wait until the client runs out of memory.
(This is very similar to Ben S's answer, but I think a byte array is a bit more robust than a StringBuilder in the face of encoding issues. Decoding bytes to a string is best done higher up, once you have a complete message.)
I would just use a StringBuilder and read in one character at a time, copying and emptying the builder whenever I hit a null terminator.
I wrote this answer regarding Java sockets but the concept is the same.
What's the best way to monitor a socket for new data and then process that data?