I have a C++ Server where Clients would connect to the Server socket and fetch Search results. I am using Boost library for my Socket programming.
There will be 5 search results in all for which a Client connects. These Search results are expensive for the Server to compute and the computation is done in an iterative way. Now what happens many times is that the clients disconnect after they have received the results for 2 or 3 Search results. I want to stop the Search processing thread as soon as the client who made the request disconnects. What is the best API call to confirm that ? I am willing to write my own wrapper on top of boost if this is even possible.
I am using HTTP only.
thanks
The only way you can detect a TCP disconnect is by doing I/O to it. After some sends to a peer which has disconnected you will get ECONNRESET. This won't happen on the first send due to TCP buffering.
Related
I have a tcp client/server, and I want to detect connection loss in client side; because my client have multiple interfaces and at a time I connected to server with one of them, I want to know how to detect connection loss in client side so that I could connect my tcp client with another interface to the server and if all of them are down I store my data in text files. I googled it and I already seen keep alive but it's not what I want.
if it is important my project is in linux and code is in c++.
Try to read from the socket. When the socket closes, the read will fail, giving you simple detection. You can do this in a dedicated detection thread so that your main thread doesn't block.
TCP connections are designed to be error correcting and not time critical. This error correction includes network timeouts.
Reads and Write will not fail until the socket is actually closed, which may not be for a very long time.
The only way for a client to decide if a connection has timed-out is for the client to detect that it hasn't received any messages for a specified time, and manually close the socket.
That's what Keep Alive messages are for.
The best way that I found is to check buffer, if buffer is empty it means that your TCP client send the packet to the TCP server successfully and you can send the next packet; for checking the buffer you can use SIOCOUTQ; its very easy to use and show you how much data you have in your buffer.
I am writing a client-server application using sockets in C++.
The protocol for communications is essentially:
The client connects to the server.
The client "sends" an ASCII command to the server.
The server executes the command remotely, and gets the results, and sends the results back to the client.
the results can be multiple megabytes of data. Once all the results are sent to the client, I would like the server to signal the client that it's done.
Is the best way to closesocket(), or should it send a message that indicates to the client that there are no more results, and the client can decide whether to close the socket or not? The drawback with closing the socket is that the client will need to establish a new connection if it wants to execute another command, but the drawback of sending a message back from the server is that the client needs to scan every recv to determine if the results are done.
Which is the best practice?
I would take a slightly lateral approach:
Client sends command to server
Server send size of response and then the real response
Client can issue new command / close connection
In this way the client knows how much to read and can decide whether to close the connection or not.
I need a little help if someone's got a minute.
I've written a web server using IO completion ports, but I am having some trouble sending out large files. Web pages seem to load fine, but during large file transfers, WSASend() fails after a few minutes with error "The specified network name is no longer available."
Right now, my server just closes the associated connection when any overlapped operation fails. Is this the right thing to do? or should I retry failed overlapped operations a few times before I close the socket? I am using tcp/stream sockets.
(fixed) I am also receiving what seems like random 0 byte packets from WSARecv. I am not sure what to make of this, or if the problem is related.(/fixed)
Thanks for any help
edit: now that the server properly handles connections, and has a much more comprehensive log, it seems like Len is right. The client is closing the connection for some reason.
The log:
Initializing Windows Sockets...
Forwarding port 80...
Starting server...
Waiting for incoming connections...
Socket 1128: Client connected.
Socket 1128: Request received
Socket 1128: Sent response
Socket 1128: Error 64: SendChunk() failed. //WSASend()
Socket 1128: Closing connection - GetQueueCompletionStatus == FALSE
so the question is now, why would the client close the connection? It takes anywhere from 2-5 minutes to happen. I have decreased the buffer size to 4098 bytes per send, and only send the next chunk when the first has completed.
Thanks again for any ideas on this.
p.s. I even just implemented a retry function so that it will retry a failed overlapped IO operation five times before giving up....still no luck =(
A zero length packet returned from recv indicates client on the other end has closed the connection.
Which answers why your subsequent send to the client failed.
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/recv.html
If no messages are available to be
received and the peer has performed an
orderly shutdown, recv() shall return
0.
Are you doing anything to impose some form of flow control on your data transmission?
If not then you are probably using up resources which is causing the send to fail.
For example, if you are simply issuing LOTS of WSASend() calls one after the other rather than pacing them based on when they complete then each one will use system resources (non-paged pool and/or lock pages which go towards the 'locked pages limit'). You'll then likely eventually fail with ENOBUFS or similar errors.
What you need to do is build a flow control system that works off of the send completions so that you only ever have a known number of sends outstanding at a time.
See these questions for more detail:
Implement a good performing "to-send" queue with TCP
Limiting TCP sends with a "to-be-sent" queue and other design issues
Finally figured it out.
from Rogers Internet Terms of Service:
Without limitation, you may not use (or allow anyone else to use) our Services to:
(xvi) operate a server in connection with the Services, including, without limitation, >mail, news, file, gopher, telnet, chat, Web, or host configuration servers, multimedia >streamers or multi-user interactive forums;
how lame is that? O_o
good news: server works fine =)
edit- called Rogers. They verified that they are cutting me off, and told me that I need a business account to run a web server.
I am writing a server in linux that is supposed to serve an API.
Initially, I wanted to make it Multi-threaded on a single port, meaning that I'd have multiple threads working on various request received on a single port.
One of my friends told me that it not the way it is supposed to work. He told me that when a request is received, I first have to follow a Handshake procedure, create a thread that is listening to some other port dedicated to the request and then redirect the requested client to the new port.
Theoretically, it's very interesting but I could not find any information on how to implement the handshake and do the redirection. Can someone help?
If I'm not wrong in interpreting your responses, once I create a multithreaded server with a main thread listening to a port, and creates a new thread to handle requests, I'm essentially making it multithreaded on a single port?
Consider the scenario where I get a large number of requests every second. Isn't it true that every request on the port should now wait for the "current" request to complete? If not, how would the communication still be done: Say a browser sends a request, so the thread handling this has to first listen to the port, block it, process it, respond and then unblock it.
By this, eventhough I'm having "multithreads" , all I'm using is one single thread at a time apart from the main thread because the port is being blocked.
What your friend told you is similar to passive FTP - a client tells the server that it needs a connection, the server sends back the port number and the client creates a data connection to that port.
But all you wanted to do is a multithreaded server. All you need is one server socket listening and accepting connections on a given port. As soon as the automatic TCP handshake is finished, you'll get a new socket from the accept function - that socket will be used for communication with the client that has just connected. So now you only have to create a new thread, passing that client socket to the thread function. In your server thread, you will then call accept again in order to accept another connection.
TCP/IP does the handshake, if you can't think of any reason to do a handshake than your application does not demand it.
An example of an application specific handshake could be for user authentication.
What your colleague is suggesting sounds like the way FTP works. This is not a good thing to do -- the internet these days is more or less used for protocols which use a single port, and having a command port is bad. One of the reasons is because statefull firewalls aren't designed for multi-port applications; they have to be extended for each individual application that does things this way.
Look at ASIO's tutorial on async TCP. There one part accept connections on TCP and spawns handlers that each communicate with a single client. That's how TCP-servers usually work (including HTTP/web, the most common tcp protocol.)
You may disregard the asynchronous stuff of ASIO if you're set on creating a thread per connection. It doesn't apply to your question. (Going fully async and have one worker-thread per core is nice, but it might not integrate well with the rest of your environment.)
Hey gang. I have just written a client and server in C++ using sys/socket. I need to handle a situation where the client is still active but the server is down. One suggested way to do this is to use a heartbeat to periodically assert connectivity. And if there is none to try to reconnect every X seconds for Y period of time, and then to time out.
Is this "heartbeat" the best way to check for connectivity?
The socket I am using might have information on it, is there a way to check that there is a connection without messing with the buffer?
If you're using TCP sockets over an IP network, you can use the TCP protocol's keepalive feature, which will periodically check the socket to make sure the other end is still there. (This also has the advantage of keeping the forwarding record for your socket valid in any NAT routers between your client and your server.)
Here's a TCP keepalive overview which outlines some of the reasons you might want to use TCP keepalive; this Linux-specific HOWTO describes how to configure your socket to use TCP keepalive at runtime.
It looks like you can enable TCP keepalive in Windows sockets by setting SIO_KEEPALIVE_VALS using the WSAIoctl() function.
If you're using UDP sockets over IP you'll need to build your own heartbeat into your protocol.
Yes, this heartbeat is the best way. You'll have to build it into the protocol the server and client use to communicate.
The simplest solution is to have the client send data periodically and the server close the connection if it hasn't received any data from the client in a particular period of time. This works perfectly for query/response protocols where the client sends queries and the server sends responses.
For example, you can use the following scheme:
The server responds to every query. If the server does not receive a query for two minutes, it closes the connection.
The client sends queries and keeps the connection open after each one.
If the client has not send a query for one minute, it sends an "are you there" query. The server responds with "yes I am". This resets the server's two minutes timer and confirms to the client that the connection is still available.
It may be simpler to just have the client close the connection if it hasn't needed to send a query for the past minute. Since all operations are initiated by the client, it can always just open a new connection if it needs to perform a new operation. That reduces it to just this:
The server closes the connection if it hasn't received a query in two minutes.
The client closes the connection if it hasn't needed to send a query in one minute.
However, this doesn't assure the client that the server is present and ready to accept a query at all times. If you need this capability, you will have to implement an "are you there" "yes I am" query/response into your protocol.
If the other side has gone away (i.e. the process has died, the machine has gone down, etc.), attempting to receive data from the socket should result in an error. However if the other side is merely hung, the socket will remain open. In this case, having a heartbeat is useful. Make sure that whatever protocol you are using (on top of TCP) supports some kind of "do-nothing" request or packet - each side can use this to keep track of the last time they received something from the other side, and can then close the connection if too much time elapses between packets.
Note that this is assuming you're using TCP/IP. If you're using UDP, then that's a whole other kettle of fish, since it's connectionless.
Ok, I don't know what your program does or anything, so maybe this isn't feasible, but I suggest that you avoid trying to always keep the socket open. It should only be open when you are using it, and should be closed when you are not.
If you are between reads and writes waiting on user input, close the socket. Design your client/server protocol (assuming you're doing this by hand and not using any standard protocols like http and/or SOAP) to handle this.
Sockets will error if the connection is dropped; write your program such that you don't lose any information in the case of such an error during a write to the socket and that you don't gain any information in the case of an error during a read from the socket. Transactionality and atomicity should be rolled into your client/server protocol (again, assuming you're designing it yourself).
maybe this will help you, TCP Keepalive HOWTO
or this SO_SOCKET