Parallel Server - Is it better to spawn a new per-connection handler, or spawn a new accepting process?...
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
}
I'm reading the "Using TCP" chapter of "Software for a Concurrent World", and the parallel TCP server confuses me.
Rather than looping and spawning a new handler process for each connection, it spawns a new acceptor process – i.e. it continuously spawns copies of itself.
%% Parallel TCP Server (From the book)
par_start(Port) ->
{ok, Sock} = gen_tcp:listen(Port, [{packet, line}]),
spawn(fun() -> par_connect(Sock) end).
par_connect(Sock) ->
{ok, Conn} = gen_tcp:accept(Sock),
% Spawn a new process to accept more connections
spawn(fun() -> par_connect(Sock) end),
handle(Conn).
handle(Conn) ->
receive
{tcp, Socket, Bin} ->
io:format("Data: ~p~n", [Bin]),
gen_tcp:send(Socket, Bin),
handle(Conn);
{error, closed} ->
io:format("Connection closed: ~p~n", [Conn])
end.
I find this bit confusing:
par_connect(Sock) ->
{ok, Conn} = gen_tcp:accept(Sock),
% Spawn a new process to accept more connections
spawn(fun() -> par_connect(Sock) end),
handle(Conn).
Is there a benefit to handling the connection in the process that accepts it, rather than spawning a new handler for each connection?
Spawning new handler for each connection:
connect(Sock) ->
{ok, Conn} = gen_tcp:accept(Sock),
% Handle connection in different process
Handler = spawn(fun() -> handle(Conn) end),
gen_tcp:controlling_process(Conn, Handler),
% Loop to accept more connections
connect(Sock).
It does avoid a call to gen_tcp:controlling_process(..). Is it faster to skip this, and instead spawn a new process?
tcp server erlang
asked Nov 17 '18 at 2:58
hazhaz
385423
add a comment |
I'm reading the "Using TCP" chapter of "Software for a Concurrent World", and the parallel TCP server confuses me.
Rather than looping and spawning a new handler process for each connection, it spawns a new acceptor process – i.e. it continuously spawns copies of itself.
%% Parallel TCP Server (From the book)
par_start(Port) ->
{ok, Sock} = gen_tcp:listen(Port, [{packet, line}]),
spawn(fun() -> par_connect(Sock) end).
par_connect(Sock) ->
{ok, Conn} = gen_tcp:accept(Sock),
% Spawn a new process to accept more connections
spawn(fun() -> par_connect(Sock) end),
handle(Conn).
handle(Conn) ->
receive
{tcp, Socket, Bin} ->
io:format("Data: ~p~n", [Bin]),
gen_tcp:send(Socket, Bin),
handle(Conn);
{error, closed} ->
io:format("Connection closed: ~p~n", [Conn])
end.
I find this bit confusing:
par_connect(Sock) ->
{ok, Conn} = gen_tcp:accept(Sock),
% Spawn a new process to accept more connections
spawn(fun() -> par_connect(Sock) end),
handle(Conn).
Is there a benefit to handling the connection in the process that accepts it, rather than spawning a new handler for each connection?
Spawning new handler for each connection:
connect(Sock) ->
{ok, Conn} = gen_tcp:accept(Sock),
% Handle connection in different process
Handler = spawn(fun() -> handle(Conn) end),
gen_tcp:controlling_process(Conn, Handler),
% Loop to accept more connections
connect(Sock).
It does avoid a call to gen_tcp:controlling_process(..). Is it faster to skip this, and instead spawn a new process?
tcp server erlang
asked Nov 17 '18 at 2:58
hazhaz
385423
1
Yes, it is. you're right.
– Pouriya
Nov 17 '18 at 12:32
add a comment |
I'm reading the "Using TCP" chapter of "Software for a Concurrent World", and the parallel TCP server confuses me.
Rather than looping and spawning a new handler process for each connection, it spawns a new acceptor process – i.e. it continuously spawns copies of itself.
%% Parallel TCP Server (From the book)
par_start(Port) ->
{ok, Sock} = gen_tcp:listen(Port, [{packet, line}]),
spawn(fun() -> par_connect(Sock) end).
par_connect(Sock) ->
{ok, Conn} = gen_tcp:accept(Sock),
% Spawn a new process to accept more connections
spawn(fun() -> par_connect(Sock) end),
handle(Conn).
handle(Conn) ->
receive
{tcp, Socket, Bin} ->
io:format("Data: ~p~n", [Bin]),
gen_tcp:send(Socket, Bin),
handle(Conn);
{error, closed} ->
io:format("Connection closed: ~p~n", [Conn])
end.
I find this bit confusing:
par_connect(Sock) ->
{ok, Conn} = gen_tcp:accept(Sock),
% Spawn a new process to accept more connections
spawn(fun() -> par_connect(Sock) end),
handle(Conn).
Is there a benefit to handling the connection in the process that accepts it, rather than spawning a new handler for each connection?
Spawning new handler for each connection:
connect(Sock) ->
{ok, Conn} = gen_tcp:accept(Sock),
% Handle connection in different process
Handler = spawn(fun() -> handle(Conn) end),
gen_tcp:controlling_process(Conn, Handler),
% Loop to accept more connections
connect(Sock).
It does avoid a call to gen_tcp:controlling_process(..). Is it faster to skip this, and instead spawn a new process?
tcp server erlang
asked Nov 17 '18 at 2:58
hazhaz
385423
I'm reading the "Using TCP" chapter of "Software for a Concurrent World", and the parallel TCP server confuses me.
Rather than looping and spawning a new handler process for each connection, it spawns a new acceptor process – i.e. it continuously spawns copies of itself.
%% Parallel TCP Server (From the book)
par_start(Port) ->
{ok, Sock} = gen_tcp:listen(Port, [{packet, line}]),
spawn(fun() -> par_connect(Sock) end).
par_connect(Sock) ->
{ok, Conn} = gen_tcp:accept(Sock),
% Spawn a new process to accept more connections
spawn(fun() -> par_connect(Sock) end),
handle(Conn).
handle(Conn) ->
receive
{tcp, Socket, Bin} ->
io:format("Data: ~p~n", [Bin]),
gen_tcp:send(Socket, Bin),
handle(Conn);
{error, closed} ->
io:format("Connection closed: ~p~n", [Conn])
end.
I find this bit confusing:
par_connect(Sock) ->
{ok, Conn} = gen_tcp:accept(Sock),
% Spawn a new process to accept more connections
spawn(fun() -> par_connect(Sock) end),
handle(Conn).
Is there a benefit to handling the connection in the process that accepts it, rather than spawning a new handler for each connection?
Spawning new handler for each connection:
connect(Sock) ->
{ok, Conn} = gen_tcp:accept(Sock),
% Handle connection in different process
Handler = spawn(fun() -> handle(Conn) end),
gen_tcp:controlling_process(Conn, Handler),
% Loop to accept more connections
connect(Sock).
It does avoid a call to gen_tcp:controlling_process(..). Is it faster to skip this, and instead spawn a new process?
tcp server erlang
tcp server erlang
asked Nov 17 '18 at 2:58
hazhaz
385423
asked Nov 17 '18 at 2:58
hazhaz
385423
asked Nov 17 '18 at 2:58
hazhaz
385423
asked Nov 17 '18 at 2:58
hazhaz
385423
asked Nov 17 '18 at 2:58
hazhaz
385423
385423
1
Yes, it is. you're right.
– Pouriya
Nov 17 '18 at 12:32
add a comment |
1
Yes, it is. you're right.
– Pouriya
Nov 17 '18 at 12:32
1
1
Yes, it is. you're right.
– Pouriya
Nov 17 '18 at 12:32
Yes, it is. you're right.
– Pouriya
Nov 17 '18 at 12:32
add a comment |
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%2f53347799%2fparallel-server-is-it-better-to-spawn-a-new-per-connection-handler-or-spawn-a%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%2f53347799%2fparallel-server-is-it-better-to-spawn-a-new-per-connection-handler-or-spawn-a%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
1
Yes, it is. you're right.
– Pouriya
Nov 17 '18 at 12:32