I became involved in the
nanomsg community back in 2014, when
I wrote mangos as a pure
Go implementation of the wire protocols behind
nanomsg. I did that work because I was dissatisfied with the
ZeroMQ licensing model
and the C++ baggage that came with it. I also needed something that would
work with Go on illumos, which at the time
lacked support for
cgo (so I could not just use an FFI binding.)
At the time, it was the only alternate implementation those protocols. Writing mangos gave me a lot of detail about the internals of nanomsg and the SP protocols.
It would not be wrong to say that one of the goals of mangos was to teach me about Go. It was my first non-trivial Go project.
While working with mangos, I wound up implementing a number of additional features, such as a TLS transport, the ability to bind to wild card ports, and the ability to determine more information about the sender of a message. This was incredibly useful in a number of projects.
I initially looked at nanomsg itself, as I wanted to add a TLS transport to it, and I needed to make some bug fixes (for protocol bugs for example), and so forth.
Perhaps it might be better to state that there were a number of opportunities to learn from the lessons of nanomsg, as well as lessons we learned while building nng itself.
State Machine Madness
What I ran into in nanomsg, when attempting to improve it, was a challenging mess of state machines. nanomsg has dozens of state machines, many of which feed into others, such that tracking flow through the state machines is incredibly painful.
Worse, these state machines are designed to be run from a single worker thread. This means that a given socket is entirely single theaded; you could in theory have dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of connections open, but they would be serviced only by a single thread. (Admittedly non-blocking I/O is used to let the OS kernel calls run asynchronously perhaps on multiple cores, but nanomsg itself runs all socket code on a single worker thread.)
There is another problem too — the
inproc code that moves messages
between one socket and another was incredibly racy. This is because the
two sockets have different locks, and so dealing with the different
contexts was tricky (and consequently buggy). (I’ve since, I think, fixed
the worst of the bugs here, but only after many hours of pulling out hair.)
The state machines also make fairly linear flow really difficult to follow.
For example, there is a state machine to read the header information. This
may come a byte a time, and the state machine has to add the bytes, check
for completion, and possibly change state, even if it is just reading a
single 32-bit word. This is a lot more complex than most programmers are
used to, such as
read(fd, &val, 4).
Now to be fair, Martin Sustrik had the best intentions when he created the state machine model around which nanomsg is built. I do think that from experience this is one of the most dense and unapproachable parts of nanomsg, in spite of the fact that Martin’s goal was precisely the opposite. I consider this a "failed experiment" — but hey failed experiments are the basis of all great science.
While nanomsg is mostly internally single threaded, I decided to try to emulate the simple architecture of mangos using system threads. (mangos benefits greatly from Go's excellent coroutine facility.) Having been well and truly spoiled by illumos threading (and especially illumos kernel threads), I thought this would be a reasonable architecture.
Sadly, this initial effort, while it worked, scaled incredibly poorly — even so-called "modern" operating systems like macOS 10.12 and Windows 8.1 simply melted or failed entirely when creating any non-trivial number of threads. (To me, creating 100 threads should be a no-brainer, especially if one limits the stack size appropriately. I’m used to be able to create thousands of threads without concern. As I said, I’ve been spoiled. If your system falls over at a mere 200 threads I consider it a toy implementation of threading. Unfortunately most of the mainstream operating systems are therefore toy implementations.)
Chalk up another failed experiment.
I did find another approach which is discussed further.
File Descriptor Driven
Most of the underlying I/O in nanomsg is built around file descriptors,
and it’s internal usock structure, which is also state machine driven.
This means that implementing new transports which might need something
other than a file descriptor, is really non-trivial. This stymied my
first attempt to add OpenSSL support to get TLS
added — OpenSSL has it’s own
struct BIO for this stuff, and I could
not see an easy way to convert nanomsg's
usock stuff to accomodate the
In retrospect, OpenSSL wasn’t the ideal choice for an SSL/TLS library, and we have since chosen another (mbed TLS). Still, we needed an abstraction model that was better than just file descriptors for I/O.
In order to support use in event driven programming, asynchronous
situations, etc. nanomsg offers non-blocking I/O. In order to make
this work for end-users, a notification mechanism is required, and
nanomsg, in the spirit of following POSIX, offers a notification method
In order for this to work, it offers up a selectable file descriptor for send and another one for receive. When events occur, these are written to, and the user application "clears" these by reading from them. (This is done on behalf of the application by nanomsg's API calls.)
This means that in addition to the context switch code, there are not fewer than 2 extra system calls executed per message sent or received, and on a mostly idle system as many as 3. This means that to send a message from one process to another you may have to execute up to 6 extra system calls, beyond the 2 required to actually send and receive the message.
Its even more hideous to support this on Windows, where there is no
There are cases where this file descriptor logic is easier for existing
applications to integrate into event loops (e.g. they already have a thread
But for many cases this is not necessary. A simple callback mechanism would be far better, with the FDs available only as an option for code that needs them. This is the approach that we have taken with nng.
As another consequence of our approach, we do not require file descriptors
for sockets at all, so it is possible to create applications containing
many thousands of
inproc sockets with no files open at all. (Obviously
if you’re going to perform real I/O to other processes or other systems,
you’re going to need to have the underlying transport file descriptors
open, but then the only real limit should be the number of files that you
can open on your system. And the number of active connections you can maintain
should ideally approach that system limit closely.)
Another of Martin’s goals, which seems worthwhile at first, was the attempt to provide a familiar POSIX API (based upon the BSD socket API). As a C programmer coming from UNIX systems, this really attracted me.
The problem is that the POSIX APIs are actually really horrible. In
particular the semantics around
cmsg are about as arcane and painful as
one can imagine. Largely, this has meant that extensions to the
API simply have not occurred in nanomsg.
cmsg API specified by POSIX is as bad as it is because POSIX had
requirements not to break APIs that already existed, and they needed to
shim something that would work with existing implementations, including
getting across a system call boundary. nanomsg has never had such
Oh, and there was that whole "design by committee" aspect.
Attempting to retain low numbered "socket descriptors" had its own
problems — a huge source of use-after-close bugs, which made the
nn_close() incredibly dangerous for multithreaded sockets.
(If one thread closes and opens a new socket, other threads still using
the old socket might wind up accessing the "new" socket without realizing
The other thing is that BSD socket APIs are super familiar to UNIX C programmers — but experience with nanomsg has taught us already that these are actually in the minority of nanomsg's users. Most of our users are coming to us from C++ (object oriented), Java, and Python backgrounds. For them the BSD sockets API is frankly somewhat bizarre and alien.
With nng, we realized that constraining ourselves to the mistakes of the POSIX API was hurting rather than helping. So nng provides a much friendlier interface for getting properties associated with messages.
In nng we also generally try hard to avoid reusing an identifier until no other option exists. This generally means most applications won’t see socket reuse until billions of other sockets have been opened. There is little chance for accidental reuse.
Of course, there are a number of existing nanomsg consumers "in the wild" already. It is important to continue to support them. So I decided from the get go to implement a "compatibility" layer, that provides the same API, and as much as possible the same ABI, as legacy nanomsg. However, new features and capabilities would not necessarily be exposed to the the legacy API.
Today nng offers this. You can relink an existing nanomsg binary against libnng instead of libnn, and it usually Just Works™. Source compatibility is almost as easy, although the application code needs to be modified to use different header files.
|I am considering changing the include file in the future so that it matches exactly the nanomsg include path, so that only a compiler flag change would be needed.|
As a consequence of our experience with threads being so unscalable,
we decided to create a new underlying abstraction modeled largely on
Windows IO completion ports. (As bad as so many of the Windows APIs
are, the IO completion port stuff is actually pretty nice.) Under the
hood in nng all I/O is asynchronous, and we have
for each pending I/O. These have an associated completion routine.
The completion routines are usually run on a separate worker thread (we have many such workers; in theory the number should be tuned to the available number of CPU cores to ensure that we never wait while a CPU core is available for work), but they can be run "synchronously" if the I/O provider knows it is safe to do so (for example the completion is occuring in a context where no locks are held.)
nni_aio structures are accessible to user applications as well, which can
lead to much more efficient and easier to write asynchronous applications,
and can aid integration into event-driven systems and runtimes, without
requiring extra system calls required by the legacy nanomsg approach.
There is still performance tuning work to do, especially optimization for
specific pollers like
kqueue() to address the C10K problem,
but that work is already in progress.
Portability & Embeddability
A significant goal of nng is to be portable to many kinds of different kinds of systems, and embedded in systems that do not support POSIX or Win32 APIs. To that end we have a clear platform portability layer. We do require that platforms supply entry points for certain networking, synchronization, threading, and timekeeping functions, but these are fairly straight-forward to implement on any reasonable 32-bit or 64-bit system, including most embedded operating systems.
Additionally, this portability layer may be used to build other kinds of experiments — for example it should be relatively straight-forward to provide a "platform" based on one of the various coroutine libraries such as Martin’s libdill or libtask.
|If you want to write a coroutine-based platform, let me know!|
The other, most critical, motivation behind nng was to enable an easier creation of new transports. In particular, one client ( Capitar IT Group BV) contracted the creation of a ZeroTier transport for nanomsg.
After beating my head against the state machines some more, I finally asked myself if it would not be easier just to rewrite nanomsg using the model I had created for mangos.
In retrospect, I’m not sure that the answer was a clear and definite yes in favor of nng, but for the other things I want to do, it has enabled a lot of new work. The ZeroTier transport was created with a relatively modest amount of effort, in spite of being based upon a connectionless transport. I do not believe I could have done this easily in the existing nanomsg.
I’ve since added a rich TLS transport, and have implemented a WebSocket transport that is far more capable than that in nanomsg, as it can support TLS and sharing the TCP port across multiple nng sockets (using the path to discriminate) or even other HTTP services.
There are already plans afoot for other kinds of transports using QUIC or KCP or SSH, as well as a pure UDP transport. The new nng transport layer makes implementation of these all fairly straight-forward.
HTTP and Other services
As part of implementing a real WebSocket transport, it was necessary to implement at least some HTTP capabilities. Rather than just settle for a toy implementation, nng has a very capable HTTP server and client framework. The server can be used to build real web services, so it becomes possible for example to serve static content, REST API, and nng based services all from the same TCP port using the same program.
We’ve also made the WebSocket services fairly generic, which may support a plethora of other kinds of transports and services.
There is also a portability layer — so some common services (threading, timing, etc.) are provided in the nng library to help make writing portable nng applications easier.
It will not surprise me if developers start finding uses for nng that have nothing to do with Scalability Protocols.
Towards nanomsg 2.0
It is my intention that nng ultimately replace nanomsg. I do think of it as "nanomsg 2.0". In fact "nng" stands for "nanomsg next generation" in my mind. Some day before too long I’m hoping that the various website references to nanomsg my simply be updated to point at nng. It is not clear to me whether at that time I will simply rename the existing code to nanomsg, nanomsg2, or leave it as nng.