OSI protocol stack--well defined. In reality we have only some of the
How to locate?
- machine and port
- name servers
See old Fig 10-8
- blocking send (synchronous)
- nonblocking send with copy
- nonblocking send with interrupt (no copying of buffer). Sender must
know the receiver has gotten the message before reusing the buffer.
Remote Procedure Call (RPC) provides a different
paradigm for accessing network services. Instead of accessing
remote services by sending and receiving messages, a client invokes
services by making a local procedure call. The local procedure hides
the details of the network communication.
When making a remote procedure call:
- The calling environment is suspended, procedure parameters are
transferred across the network to the environment where the procedure
is to execute, and the procedure is executed there.
- When the procedure finishes and produces its results, its
results are transferred back to the calling environment, where
execution resumes as if returning from a regular procedure call.
The main goal of RPC is to hide the existence of the network from a
program. As a result, RPC doesn't quite fit into the OSI model:
- The message-passing nature of network communication is hidden
from the user. The user doesn't first open a connection, read
and write data, and then close the connection. Indeed, a client often
doesn not even know they are using the network!
- RPC often omits many of
the protocol layers to improve performance. Even a small
performance improvement is important because a program may invoke RPCs
often. For example, on (diskless) Sun workstations, every file access
is made via an RPC.
RPC is especially well suited for client-server (e.g.,
query-response) interaction in which the flow of control alternates
between the caller and callee.
Conceptually, the client and server do
not both execute at the same time. Instead, the thread of execution
jumps from the caller to the callee and then back again.
The following steps take place during an RPC (See Tanenbaum Fig 2-8):
- A client invokes a client stub procedure, passing
parameters in the usual way.
The client stub resides within the client's own address space.
- The client stub marshalls the parameters into a message.
Marshalling includes converting the representation of the parameters
into a standard format, and copying each parameter into the message.
- The client stub passes the message to the transport layer, which
sends it to the remote server machine.
- On the server, the transport layer
passes the message to a server stub, which demarshalls the
parameters and calls the desired server routine using the
regular procedure call mechanism.
- When the server procedure completes, it returns to the server
stub (e.g., via a normal procedure call return), which
marshalls the return values into a message. The server stub then
hands the message to the transport layer.
- The transport layer sends the result message back to the client
transport layer, which hands the message back to the client stub.
- The client stub demarshalls the return parameters and execution
returns to the caller.
Issues that must be addressed:
- Parameters must be marshalled into a standard
Parameters consist of simple types (e.g., integers) and compound types
(e.g., C structures or Pascal records). Moreover, because
each type has its own representation, the types of the various
parameters must be known to the modules that actually do the
conversion. For example, 4 bytes of characters would be uninterpreted,
while a 4-byte integer may need to the order of its bytes reversed.
- Call-by-reference not possible: the client
and server don't share an address space. That is, addresses
referenced by the server correspond to data residing in the client's
One approach is to simulate call-by-reference using copy-restore. In copy-restore, call-by-reference parameters are
handled by sending a copy of the referenced data structure to the
server, and on return replacing the client's copy with that modified
by the server.
However, copy-restore doesn't work in all cases.
For instance, if the
same argument is passed twice, two copies will be made, and references
through one parameter only changes one of the copies.
- How does the client know who to call, and
where the service resides?
The most flexible solution is to use dynamic binding and
find the server at run time when the RPC is first made.
The first time the client stub is invoked, it contacts a name
server to determine the transport address at which the server
- Transport protocol:
- What transport protocol should be used?
- Exception handling:
- How are errors handled?
We'll examine one solution to the above issues by considering the
approach taken by Birrell and Nelson [#!birrell-implementing-rpc!#].
Binding consists of two parts:
- refers to what service the client wants to use.
In B&N, remote procedures are named through interfaces.
An interface uniquely identifies a particular service,
describing the types and numbers of its arguments. It is similar in
purpose to a type definition in programming languauges.
For example, a ``phone'' service interface might specify a single
string argument that returns a character string phone number.
- refers to finding the transport address at which
the server actually resides. Once we have the transport address
of the service, we can send messages directly to the server.
In B&N's system, a server having a service to offer exports
an interface for it.
Exporting an interface registers it with the system so that clients
can use it.
A client must import an (exported) interface before
communication can begin. The export and import operations are
analogous to those found in object-oriented systems.
Interface names consists of two parts:
- A unique type specifies the interface (service) provided.
Type is a high-level specification, such as ``mail'' or ``file
- An instance specifies a particular server offering a type (e.g.,
``file access on wpi'').
B&N's RPC system was developed as part of a distributed system called
Grapevine. Grapevine was developed at Xerox by the same research
group the developed the Ethernet.
Among other things, Grapevine provides a distributed,
replicated database, implemented by servers residing at various
locations around the internet.
Clients can query, add new entries or modify existing entries in the
The Grapevine database maps character string keys to entries
called RNames. There are two types of entries:
- A single instance of a service.
Each server registers the transport address at which its service
can be accessed and every instance of an interface is registered as an
individual entry. Individual entries map instances to their
corresponding transport addresses.
- The type of an interface, which consists of a list
of individual RNames. Group entries contain RNames that
point to servers providing the service having that group name. Group
entries map a type (interface) to a set of individual entries
providing that service.
For example, if A and B both offered file
access, the group entry ``file access'' would consists of two
individual RNames, one for A and B's servers.
Unlike normal procedure calls, many things can go wrong with RPC.
Normally, a client will send a request, the server will execute the
request and then return a response to the client. What are
appropriate semantics for server or network failures? Possibilities:
- Just hang forever waiting for the reply that will never come.
This models regular procedure call. If a normal procedure goes
into an infinite loop, the caller never finds out. Of course, few
users will like such semantics.
- Time out and raise an exception or report failure to the client.
Of course, finding an appropriate timer value is difficult. If
the remote procedure takes a long time to execute, a timer might
time-out too quickly.
- Time out and retransmit the request.
While the last possibility seems the most reasonable, it may lead to
problems. Suppose that:
- The client transmits a request, the server executes it, but then
crashes before sending a response. If we don't get a response, is
there any way of knowing whether the server acted on the request?
- The server restarts, and the client retransmits the request.
Now, the server will reject the retransmission because the supplied
unique identifier no longer matches that in the server's export
table. At this point, the client can decide to rebind to a new server
and retry, or it can give up.
- Suppose the client rebinds to the another server, retransmits the
request, and gets a response. How many times will the request have
been executed? At least once, and possibly twice. We have no
way of knowing.
Operations that can safely be executed twice are called idempotent. For example, fetching the current time and date, or
retrieving a particular page of a file.
Is deducting $10,000 from an account idempotent? No. One can
only deduct the money once. Likewise, deleting a file is not
idempotent. If the delete request is executed twice, the first
attempt will be successful, while the second attempt produces a
``nonexistent file'' error.
While implementing RPC, B&N determined that the semantics of RPCs
could be categorized in various ways:
- Exactly once:
- The most desirable kind of semantics, where
every call is carried out exactly once, no more and no less.
Unfortunately, such semantics cannot be achieved at low cost;
if the client transmits a request, and the server crashes, the client
has no way of knowing whether the server had received and processed
the request before crashing.
- At most once:
- When control returns to the caller, the
operation will have been executed no more than once. What happens
if the server crashes? If the server crashes, the client will be
notified of the error, but will have no way of knowing whether or not
the operation was performed.
- At least once:
- The client just keeps retransmitting the
request until it gets the desired response. On return to the
caller, the operation will have be performed at least one time, but
possibly multiple times.
Can we implement RPC on top of an existing transport protocol such as
TCP? Yes. However, reliable stream protocols are designed for a
different purpose: high throughput. The cost of setting up and
terminating a connection is insignificant in comparison to the amount
of data exchanged. Most of the elapsed time is spent sending data.
With RPC, low latency is more important than high throughput.
If applications are going to use RPC much like they use regular
procedures (e.g., over and over again), performance is crucial.
RPC can be characterized as a specific instance of transaction-oriented communication, where:
- A transaction consists of a single request and a single response.
- A transaction is initiated when a client sends
a request and terminated by the server's response.
How many TCP packets would be required for a single request-response
transaction? A minimum of 5 packets: 3 for the initial
handshake, plus 2 for the FIN and FIN ACK (assuming that we can piggy
back data and a FIN on the third packet of the 3-way handshake).
A transaction-oriented transport protocol should efficiently
handle the following cases:
- Transactions in which both the request and
response messages fit in a single packet. The response can
serve as an acknowledgment, and the client handles the case of lost
packets by retransmitting the original request.
- Large multi-packet request and response messages, where
the data does not necessarily fit in a single packet.
For instance, some systems use RPC to fetch pages of a file from a
file server. A single-packet request would specify the file name, the
starting position of the data desired, and the number of bytes to be
read. The response may consist of several pages (e.g. 8K bytes) of
RPC is not always satisfactory.
Message-passing systems are more general, but details are not as
transparent to the user.
- persistence--message submitted for delivery is eventually
delivered. Electronic mail is an example (although email systems will
give up at some point).
- synchronicity--does sender wait until it receives acknowledgement of
the message being sent.
- transient delivery--no guarantees a message is delivered.
Fig 2-22 shows many combinations:
- persistent asynchronous communication--continue to retry sending, email
- transient synchronous communication--continue to retry until
receiver has a copy
- transient asynchronous communication--best effort (UDP)
- receipt-based transient synchronous communication--sender waits until
receiver has a copy
- delivery-based transient synchronous communication--sender waits until
receiver is ready for processing
- response-based transient synchronous communication--sender waits until
receiver is done processing (RPC)
Three types of communication:
- multicast--one-to-some (group)
Multicast is the most general and can subsume the other two. How is it
- multiple unicasts
- broadcast with each machine filtering
- hardware directly (Ethernet has multicast addresses)
- Closed versus Open Groups--can a nonmember send to the group?
- Peer groups versus central coordinator (may have a hybrid where one
member of a peer group temporarily takes over coordination)
- Group membership--joining and leaving a group. Central vs. distributed.
- Group addressing--distributed game (temporary addressing). Set of
name servers (well-known group address).
Predicate addressing. A predicate is evaluated by
the receiver on whether or not it should actually receive the message.
Compare to my work of using the query to actually compute a multicast
- Send/Receive Primitives--RPC does not work so naturally. How to
deal with multiple replies. May not know how many replies.
Atomicity/atomic broadcast--reliability in that the message gets to
all members of the group or none.
Message Ordering--all nodes see messages in the same order.
- Overlapping groups--synchronization between groups
- Scalability--depend on a single LAN for example.
ISIS, research project from Cornell. Toolkit for building distributed applications.
MBONE, Internet Multicast backbone.
This document was generated using the
LaTeX2HTML translator Version 2K.1beta (1.61)
Copyright © 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996,
Computer Based Learning Unit, University of Leeds.
Copyright © 1997, 1998, 1999,
Mathematics Department, Macquarie University, Sydney.
The command line arguments were:
latex2html -no_navigation -split 0 -t Communication week3-comm.tex
The translation was initiated by Craig Wills on 2002-11-07