Is there a difference between hosting a server and client on different threads rather than on different...
We have our own networking protocol and my initial integration tests were written to host a Server on one thread and a Client on another thread, then test the communication between those two. However, I was recently told I should use processes to host the Server and Client instead. The reasoning was because of possible synchronization issues and how Java or the OS (don't know which one) handles the scheduling for multithreading.
Is there actually a difference between running a Server and Client on two threads compared to two processes?
java multithreading networking
asked Nov 13 '18 at 22:10
thelostmachinethelostmachine
548
|
show 2 more comments
We have our own networking protocol and my initial integration tests were written to host a Server on one thread and a Client on another thread, then test the communication between those two. However, I was recently told I should use processes to host the Server and Client instead. The reasoning was because of possible synchronization issues and how Java or the OS (don't know which one) handles the scheduling for multithreading.
Is there actually a difference between running a Server and Client on two threads compared to two processes?
java multithreading networking
asked Nov 13 '18 at 22:10
thelostmachinethelostmachine
548
3
Of course - for examplestatic synchronizedwill lock across every thread in the JVM.
– Boris the Spider
Nov 13 '18 at 22:12
1
And since they share the same memory and objects, you might have a different behavior compared to isolated processes.
– JB Nizet
Nov 13 '18 at 22:13
Ah okay. So then it really is better to write these tests using processes, correct?
– thelostmachine
Nov 13 '18 at 22:13
1
If in real usage they'll always be separate processes, then yes your integration tests better reflect that. But if your server sometimes spawn a client thread in-process, then you want to test that as well.
– NPras
Nov 13 '18 at 22:49
when the server and client reside in the same process, they may interact through shared memory, if such interaction is coded in the program. And if it is not coded, then both kind of tests are equivalent.
– Alexei Kaigorodov
Nov 14 '18 at 5:22
|
show 2 more comments
We have our own networking protocol and my initial integration tests were written to host a Server on one thread and a Client on another thread, then test the communication between those two. However, I was recently told I should use processes to host the Server and Client instead. The reasoning was because of possible synchronization issues and how Java or the OS (don't know which one) handles the scheduling for multithreading.
Is there actually a difference between running a Server and Client on two threads compared to two processes?
java multithreading networking
asked Nov 13 '18 at 22:10
thelostmachinethelostmachine
548
We have our own networking protocol and my initial integration tests were written to host a Server on one thread and a Client on another thread, then test the communication between those two. However, I was recently told I should use processes to host the Server and Client instead. The reasoning was because of possible synchronization issues and how Java or the OS (don't know which one) handles the scheduling for multithreading.
Is there actually a difference between running a Server and Client on two threads compared to two processes?
java multithreading networking
java multithreading networking
asked Nov 13 '18 at 22:10
thelostmachinethelostmachine
548
asked Nov 13 '18 at 22:10
thelostmachinethelostmachine
548
asked Nov 13 '18 at 22:10
thelostmachinethelostmachine
548
asked Nov 13 '18 at 22:10
thelostmachinethelostmachine
548
asked Nov 13 '18 at 22:10
thelostmachinethelostmachine
548
548
3
Of course - for examplestatic synchronizedwill lock across every thread in the JVM.
– Boris the Spider
Nov 13 '18 at 22:12
1
And since they share the same memory and objects, you might have a different behavior compared to isolated processes.
– JB Nizet
Nov 13 '18 at 22:13
Ah okay. So then it really is better to write these tests using processes, correct?
– thelostmachine
Nov 13 '18 at 22:13
1
If in real usage they'll always be separate processes, then yes your integration tests better reflect that. But if your server sometimes spawn a client thread in-process, then you want to test that as well.
– NPras
Nov 13 '18 at 22:49
when the server and client reside in the same process, they may interact through shared memory, if such interaction is coded in the program. And if it is not coded, then both kind of tests are equivalent.
– Alexei Kaigorodov
Nov 14 '18 at 5:22
|
show 2 more comments
3
Of course - for examplestatic synchronizedwill lock across every thread in the JVM.
– Boris the Spider
Nov 13 '18 at 22:12
1
And since they share the same memory and objects, you might have a different behavior compared to isolated processes.
– JB Nizet
Nov 13 '18 at 22:13
Ah okay. So then it really is better to write these tests using processes, correct?
– thelostmachine
Nov 13 '18 at 22:13
1
If in real usage they'll always be separate processes, then yes your integration tests better reflect that. But if your server sometimes spawn a client thread in-process, then you want to test that as well.
– NPras
Nov 13 '18 at 22:49
when the server and client reside in the same process, they may interact through shared memory, if such interaction is coded in the program. And if it is not coded, then both kind of tests are equivalent.
– Alexei Kaigorodov
Nov 14 '18 at 5:22
3
3
Of course - for example
static synchronized will lock across every thread in the JVM.– Boris the Spider
Nov 13 '18 at 22:12
Of course - for example
static synchronized will lock across every thread in the JVM.– Boris the Spider
Nov 13 '18 at 22:12
1
1
And since they share the same memory and objects, you might have a different behavior compared to isolated processes.
– JB Nizet
Nov 13 '18 at 22:13
And since they share the same memory and objects, you might have a different behavior compared to isolated processes.
– JB Nizet
Nov 13 '18 at 22:13
Ah okay. So then it really is better to write these tests using processes, correct?
– thelostmachine
Nov 13 '18 at 22:13
Ah okay. So then it really is better to write these tests using processes, correct?
– thelostmachine
Nov 13 '18 at 22:13
1
1
If in real usage they'll always be separate processes, then yes your integration tests better reflect that. But if your server sometimes spawn a client thread in-process, then you want to test that as well.
– NPras
Nov 13 '18 at 22:49
If in real usage they'll always be separate processes, then yes your integration tests better reflect that. But if your server sometimes spawn a client thread in-process, then you want to test that as well.
– NPras
Nov 13 '18 at 22:49
when the server and client reside in the same process, they may interact through shared memory, if such interaction is coded in the program. And if it is not coded, then both kind of tests are equivalent.
– Alexei Kaigorodov
Nov 14 '18 at 5:22
when the server and client reside in the same process, they may interact through shared memory, if such interaction is coded in the program. And if it is not coded, then both kind of tests are equivalent.
– Alexei Kaigorodov
Nov 14 '18 at 5:22
|
show 2 more comments
0
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53290259%2fis-there-a-difference-between-hosting-a-server-and-client-on-different-threads-r%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53290259%2fis-there-a-difference-between-hosting-a-server-and-client-on-different-threads-r%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
Of course - for example
static synchronizedwill lock across every thread in the JVM.– Boris the Spider
Nov 13 '18 at 22:12
1
And since they share the same memory and objects, you might have a different behavior compared to isolated processes.
– JB Nizet
Nov 13 '18 at 22:13
Ah okay. So then it really is better to write these tests using processes, correct?
– thelostmachine
Nov 13 '18 at 22:13
1
If in real usage they'll always be separate processes, then yes your integration tests better reflect that. But if your server sometimes spawn a client thread in-process, then you want to test that as well.
– NPras
Nov 13 '18 at 22:49
when the server and client reside in the same process, they may interact through shared memory, if such interaction is coded in the program. And if it is not coded, then both kind of tests are equivalent.
– Alexei Kaigorodov
Nov 14 '18 at 5:22