I have a server, which creates a separate thread for each new client
while ((client_socket = accept(server_socket, (sockaddr*)&client_info, &client_addr_size)))
{
nclients++;
HOSTENT *hst;
hst = gethostbyaddr((char*)&client_info.sin_addr.S_un.S_addr, 4, AF_INET);
printf("+%s [%s] new connect!\n", (hst) ? hst->h_name : "", inet_ntoa(client_info.sin_addr));
PRINTUSERS;
DWORD thID;
CreateThread(NULL, NULL, SexToClient, &client_socket, NULL, &thID);
}
Stream function every n seconds sends a message.(All streams do not do it at the same time).How to send a message to all clients at the same time?(broadcast)
I cant See Streamfunction. Without the corresponding function I cant give a perfect answer. Normally you would send (asynchron) in a for loop to all clients. The System would teen send the Massage to each Client one After Another. If you want to truly send a Massage to multiple clients at the Same time you need to use multicast.
(= sending one package which will arrive at multiple clients.) Unfortunately this is not possible using TCP, since TCP etablishes a (secure) point to point connection between one host and one client. You would have to use UDP. Remember that UDP wont care if the packages will arrive in the right Order, are correct or arrive at all.
Related
I have a system that can start multiple instances.
Every instance has a client and a server.
They are connected over socket/TCP
Every instance is started by starting a client.
The client starts (checks if IP is available, if not increase the IP by 1, checks again ...) -
The client starts the server with the free IP and connects to it. (for legacy reasons has to be like this)
Instance numbers 2, 3, 4, 5 work without issues.
...
Instance number 6. -> Fails on checking if the first IP in the range is available.
To check if IP is already in use, I do not close the socket on the server side so that it can accept the additional connection.
On the client-side, I check if I can connect to the server-side with the following code:
bool CheckIPInUse(char *ip)
{
bool ret = false;
int port = 12345;
int sock;
struct sockaddr_in serv_addr;
serv_addr.sin_family = AF_INET;
serv_addr.sin_port = htons(port);
// **non blocking** because I want the check to be fast.
sock = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM | SOCK_NONBLOCK, 0);
inet_pton(AF_INET, ip, &serv_addr.sin_addr);
int ret_conn = connect(sock, (struct sockaddr *)&serv_addr, sizeof(serv_addr));
if (ret_conn == 0){
fprintf(stdout, "connected");
ret = true;
}
else if (ret_conn < 0 && (errno != EINPROGRESS)){
fprintf(stdout, "failed to connect");
}
else
{
int check_if_connected = 10;
while (check_if_connected--)
{
socklen_t len = sizeof(serv_addr);
int ret_getpeer = getpeername(sock, (struct sockaddr *)&serv_addr, &len);
if (ret_getpeer == 0)
{
fprintf(stdout, "connected");
ret = true;
break;
}
usleep(100000);
}
}
close(sock);
return ret;
}
This works for the first 5 instances.
6th instance fails to connect to the first IP in range and tries to start the server with IP which is already in use. (always the 6th).
Is there any better way to check programmatically if IP/Port is already busy?
Any ideas on what to check. for failure in the instance number 6?
The only way to check if an ip/port on a server is available is to bind() to it. If it worked, it was available (but not any more).
Any approach that involves a test connect()ion first, to see if it fails, or anything along the lines of poking somewhere in /proc to see which IPs and ports are in use -- nothing along these lines will ever be 100% foolproof. That's because even if you reach the conclusion that the port is available, it may no longer be by the time you get around to try to bind() to it.
Now, you can take, as a starting position, that a particular IP and/or port range is reserved for your application's use, and you only wish to arbitrate IP/port allocation between different instances of your application. In that case you can do that pretty much whatever you want, you're not limited to attempting to actually start instances of your application, and hope for the best. One simplistic approach is to use lock files in /var/tmp to represent all possible IP/port combination, and have your application try, in turn, to acquire a lock on the corresponding lock file, first, and once it's official, and the lock file is acquired, then the corresponding IP/port then can be established at your leisure, but the lock file must remain locked until the IP/port is no longer in use.
But in terms of attempting to check if a socket port is available, or not, the only way to do it is to bind() it, because that, by definition, is what it does. You could attempt to implement a multi-layered approach, like trying to connect() first, and then attempt to bind() it, and if the bind() fails, then keep looking for a free port. But that's creating extra complexity, without much of a benefit.
Did you check that the server did not meet its maximum backlog length ?
You may be getting "connection refused" if the server you are trying to connect to
has more pending connections then the defined backlog.
So if multiple clients are testing at the same time, one of them may encounter this.
The most probable cause of your problem is that your client is getting a connect from the server due to the listen queue. The best way to avoid this problem is to close the socket on which you call accept(2) once all the instances are in use, and reopen it again when any of the server instances are finished.
The listen queue makes the kernel to accept (send the SYN/ACK segment) connections on the otherwise not yet open socket waiting, and this will make the connection establishment quicker for the next server instances if many such connections are entering in the system. All those connections are handled in the accept(2) socket, so the best way to accept five such connections is to close the accept socket as soon as the last connection has been established (this will not avoid the problem if a connection happens to enter the server in the time between one accept(2) and the next, but the connection so established will be closed as soon as the accept socket is still open)
In my opinion, you should have a master server process that forks new processes to handle the different connection and closes the accept socket as soon as it reaches the full capacity. Once one of the servers attending the connections closes one of them, it should reopen the accept socket and accept a new connection.
IMHO, also the most robust way of implementing such a system is to allow the extra connections to get in, but not attend them, so the connection remains open in case a new client happens to enter, and it can close it if the server doesn't attend it in a timeout interval. Having a sixth client already connected, but waiting for the server to say hello, will leave you in a state in which you can start talking to the server as soon as the last service ends.
I'm trying to create application where multiple instances will run on same machine and they will communicate together via UDP via the same port.
I was reading many threads on StackOverflow about it that it should be possible.
Though, when I open connection from each application instance I can see that each instance sends a message but only first instance (if first is closed then second...) receives that message.
I'm using ACE library for the communication. Excerpt from code:
ACE_SOCK_Dgram_Mcast dgram;
ACE_INET_Addr *listenAddress = new ACE_INET_Addr(12345, ACE_LOCALHOST);
dgram.open(*listenAddress);
ACE_INET_Addr peer_address;
char buffer[1024];
dgram.send(buffer, 256);
while (true)
{
if (dgram.recv(buffer, 256, peer_address, 0, &receiveLoopTimeout) != -1)
{
std::cout << "Received" << std::endl;
}
}
I also found out that if I call "dgram.join(*listenAddress)" then I get error, code ENODEV from the first instance of the app.
I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to do... send a message multicast so multiple receivers get it, or allow multiple processes to receive on the same UDP port unicast... I'm guessing the former.
You're using the ACE_SOCK_Dgram_Mcast class but with unicast addressing and operations. So only one instance will receive that message.
Check the ACE_wrappers/tests/Multicast_Test.cpp for examples of how to send and receive multicast.
I'd like to make a chatting program using win socket in c/c++. (I am totally newbie.)
The first question is about how to check if the client receives packets from server.
For instance, a server sends "aaaa" to a client.
And if the client doesn't receive packet "aaaa", the server should re-send the packet again.(I think). However, I don't know how to check it out.
Here is my thought blow.
First case.
Server --- "aaaa" ---> Client.
Server will be checking a sort of time waiting confirm msg from the client.
Client --- "I received it" ---> Server.
Server won't re-send the packet.
The other case.
Server --- "aaaa" ---> Client.
Server is waiting for client msg until time out
Server --- "aaaa" ---> Client again.
But these are probably inappropriate.
Look at second case. Server is waiting a msg from client for a while.
And if time's out, server will re-send a packet again.
In this case, client might receive the packet twice.
Second question is how to send unlimited size packet.
A book says packet should have a type, size, and msg.
Following it, I can only send msg with the certain size.
But i want to send msg like 1Mbytes or more.(unlimited)
How to do that?
Anyone have any good link or explain correct logic to me as easy as possible.
Thanks.
Use TCP. Think "messages" at the application level, not packets.
TCP already handles network-level packet data, error checking & resending lost packets. It presents this to the application as a "stream" of bytes, but without necessarily guaranteed delivery (since either end can be forcibly disconnected).
So at the application level, you need to handle Message Receipts & buffering -- with a re-connecting client able to request previous messages, which they hadn't (yet) correctly received.
Here are some data structures:
class or struct Message {
int type; // const MESSAGE.
int messageNumber; // sequentially incrementing.
int size; // 4 bytes, probably signed; allows up to 2GB data.
byte[] data;
}
class or struct Receipt {
int type; // const RECEIPT.
int messageNumber; // last #, successfully received.
}
You may also want a Connect/ Hello and perhaps a Disconnect/ Goodbye handshake.
class Connect {
int type; // const CONNECT.
int lastReceivedMsgNo; // last #, successfully received.
// plus, who they are?
short nameLen;
char[] name;
}
etc.
If you can be really simple & don't need to buffer/ re-send messages to re-connecting clients, it's even simpler.
You could also adopt a "uniform message structure" which had TYPE and SIZE (4-byte int) as the first two fields of every message or handshake. This might help standardize your routines for handling these, at the expense of some redundancy (eg in 'name' field-sizes).
For first part, have a look over TCP.
It provides a ordered and reliable packet transfer. Plus you can have lot of customizations in it by implementing it yourself using UDP.
Broadly, what it does is,
Server:
1. Numbers each packet and sends it
2. Waits for acknowledge of a specific packet number. And then re-transmits the lost packets.
Client:
1. Receives a packet and maintains a buffer (sliding window)
2. It keeps on collecting packets in buffer until the buffer overflows or a wrong sequenced packet arrives. As soon as it happens, the packets with right sequence are 'delivered', and the sequence number of last correct packet is send with acknowledgement.
For second part:
I would use HTTP for it.
With some modifications. Like you should have some very unique indicator to tell client that transmission is complete now, etc
I am very new to networking and have an issue with sending messages during a while loop.
To my knowledge I should do something along the lines of this:
Create Socket()
Connect()
While
Do logic
Send()
End while
Close Socket()
However it sends once and returns -1 there after.
The code will only work when I create the socket in the loop.
While
Create Socket()
Connect()
Do logic
Send()
Close Socket()
End while
Here is a section of the code I am using but doesn't work:
//init winsock
WSAStartup(MAKEWORD(2, 0), &wsaData);
//open socket
sock = socket(PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_TCP);
//connect
memset(&serveraddr, 0, sizeof(serveraddr));
serveraddr.sin_family = AF_INET;
serveraddr.sin_addr.s_addr = inet_addr(ipaddress);
serveraddr.sin_port = htons((unsigned short) port);
connect(sock, (struct sockaddr *) &serveraddr, sizeof(serveraddr));
while(true) {
if (send(sock, request.c_str(), request.length(), 0)< 0 /*!= request.length()*/) {
OutputDebugString(TEXT("Failed to send."));
} else {
OutputDebugString(TEXT("Activity sent."));
}
Sleep(30000);
}
//disconnect
closesocket(sock);
//cleanup
WSACleanup();
The function CheckForLastError() returns:10053
WSAECONNABORTED
Software caused connection abort.
An established connection was aborted by the software in your host computer, possibly due to a data transmission time-out or protocol error
Thanks
I have been looking for a solution to this problem too. I am having the same problem with my server. When trying to send a response from inside the loop, the client seems never to receive it.
As I understand the problem, according to user207421's suggestions, when you establish a connection between a client and a server, the protocol should have enough information to let the client know when the server has finished sending the response. If you see this example, you have a minimum HTTP server that responds to requests. In this case, you can use a browser or an application like Postman. And if you see the response message, you will see a header called Connection. Setting its value to close tells the client which one is the last message from the server for that request. The message is being sent, but the client keeps waiting, maybe because there is no closing element the client can recognize. I was also missing the Content-Length header. My HTTP response message was wrong, and the client was lost.
This diagram shows what needs to be outside the loop and what needs to be inside.
To understand how and why your program fails,you have to understand the functions you use.
Some of them are blocking functions and some are them not. Some of them need previous calles of other functions and some of them don't.
Now from what i understand we are talking about a client here,not a server.
The client has only non blocking functions in this case. That means that whenever you call a function,it will be executed without waiting.
So send() will send data the second it is called and the stream will go on to the next line of code.
If the information to be sent was not yet ready...you will have a problem,since nothing will be sent.
To solve it you could use some sort of a delay. The problem with delays is that they are Blocking functions meaning your stream will stop once it hits the delay. To solve it you can create a thread and lock it untill the information is ready to be sent.
But that would do the job for one send(). You will send the info and thats that.
If you want to hold the communication and send repeatedly info,you will need to create a while loop. once you have a while loop you dont have to worry about anything. That is because you can verify that the information is ready with a stream control and you can use send over and over again before terminating the connection.
Now the question is what is happening on the server side of things?
"ipaddress" should hold the ip of the server. The server might reject your request to connect.Or worst he might accept your request but he is listening with diffrent settings in relation to your client.Meaning that maybe the server is not reciving (does not have recv() function)information and you are trying to send info... that might resault in errors/crashes and what not.
I am writing an XMLRPC client in c++ that is intended to talk to a python XMLRPC server.
Unfortunately, at this time, the python XMLRPC server is only capable of fielding one request on a connection, then it shuts down, I discovered this thanks to mhawke's response to my previous query about a related subject
Because of this, I have to create a new socket connection to my python server every time I want to make an XMLRPC request. This means the creation and deletion of a lot of sockets. Everything works fine, until I approach ~4000 requests. At this point I get socket error 10048, Socket in use.
I've tried sleeping the thread to let winsock fix its file descriptors, a trick that worked when a python client of mine had an identical issue, to no avail.
I've tried the following
int err = setsockopt(s_,SOL_SOCKET,SO_REUSEADDR,(char*)TRUE,sizeof(BOOL));
with no success.
I'm using winsock 2.0, so WSADATA::iMaxSockets shouldn't come into play, and either way, I checked and its set to 0 (I assume that means infinity)
4000 requests doesn't seem like an outlandish number of requests to make during the run of an application. Is there some way to use SO_KEEPALIVE on the client side while the server continually closes and reopens?
Am I totally missing something?
The problem is being caused by sockets hanging around in the TIME_WAIT state which is entered once you close the client's socket. By default the socket will remain in this state for 4 minutes before it is available for reuse. Your client (possibly helped by other processes) is consuming them all within a 4 minute period. See this answer for a good explanation and a possible non-code solution.
Windows dynamically allocates port numbers in the range 1024-5000 (3977 ports) when you do not explicitly bind the socket address. This Python code demonstrates the problem:
import socket
sockets = []
while True:
s = socket.socket()
s.connect(('some_host', 80))
sockets.append(s.getsockname())
s.close()
print len(sockets)
sockets.sort()
print "Lowest port: ", sockets[0][1], " Highest port: ", sockets[-1][1]
# on Windows you should see something like this...
3960
Lowest port: 1025 Highest port: 5000
If you try to run this immeditaely again, it should fail very quickly since all dynamic ports are in the TIME_WAIT state.
There are a few ways around this:
Manage your own port assignments and
use bind() to explicitly bind your
client socket to a specific port
that you increment each time your
create a socket. You'll still have
to handle the case where a port is
already in use, but you will not be
limited to dynamic ports. e.g.
port = 5000
while True:
s = socket.socket()
s.bind(('your_host', port))
s.connect(('some_host', 80))
s.close()
port += 1
Fiddle with the SO_LINGER socket
option. I have found that this
sometimes works in Windows (although
not exactly sure why):
s.setsockopt(socket.SOL_SOCKET,
socket.SO_LINGER, 1)
I don't know if this will help in
your particular application,
however, it is possible to send
multiple XMLRPC requests over the
same connection using the
multicall method. Basically
this allows you to accumulate
several requests and then send them
all at once. You will not get any
responses until you actually send
the accumulated requests, so you can
essentially think of this as batch
processing - does this fit in with
your application design?
Update:
I tossed this into the code and it seems to be working now.
if(::connect(s_, (sockaddr *) &addr, sizeof(sockaddr)))
{
int err = WSAGetLastError();
if(err == 10048) //if socket in user error, force kill and reopen socket
{
closesocket(s_);
WSACleanup();
WSADATA info;
WSAStartup(MAKEWORD(2,0), &info);
s_ = socket(AF_INET,SOCK_STREAM,0);
setsockopt(s_,SOL_SOCKET,SO_REUSEADDR,(char*)&x,sizeof(BOOL));
}
}
Basically, if you encounter the 10048 error (socket in use), you can simply close the socket, call cleanup, and restart WSA, the reset the socket and its sockopt
(the last sockopt may not be necessary)
i must have been missing the WSACleanup/WSAStartup calls before, because closesocket() and socket() were definitely being called
this error only occurs once every 4000ish calls.
I am curious as to why this may be, even though this seems to fix it.
If anyone has any input on the subject i would be very curious to hear it
Do you close the sockets after using it?