I am designing a cross-platform messaging service as a learning exercise. I have programmed socket-based servers before, but always a "client-polls-server" design, like a web server. I want to be able to target mobile platforms, and I read that polling is a battery drain, so I would like to do push notification.
The server will be TCP-based, written in C++. What I'm having trouble getting my head around is how to manage the bi-directional nature of the design. I need a client to be able to send packets to the server as normal, but also listen for packets. How do I mitigate situations like, the client is sending data when the server is trying to send to it, or it's blocked listening for data but then needs to send something?
For example, consider the following crude diagram:
So, let's say client A is in the middle of sending a chunk of data (arrow 1). While this is happening, client B sends a message (arrow 2), which causes the server to attempt to send data back to client A (arrow 3), but client A hasn't finished sending arrow 1 yet. What happens in this instance? Should I setup 2 separate ports on each client, one for inbound, one for outbound? Do I need to keep track of the state of each connection?
Or is there a better approach to this altogether?
One socket port is inherently bidirectional. To handle both inbound and outbound traffic more or less concurrently you need to use nonblocking sockets.
I think the solution is pretty simple. The TCP server should have a list with connected clients. Since a TCP connection is bi-directional, the push mechanism is quite simple.
Another important thing, as long as your server isn't multithreaded, you can read from or write to one client at the same time.
Related
I am pretty new to socket programming - so this might be a simple question but I'd really like to clarify.
I have a multiple-client to single server program: the individual clients send messages to the server which processes them, and then passes it on the destination i.e. the server is an intermediary.
On the server side, there is one thread for each client which is meant to 'listen' for messages from the clients (which will be placed in a buffer). At the moment all the clients are sending messages to the same port (as far as I can tell).
I am thinking of setting up another thread on which the server will process the messages before transmitting them on. Does it make sense to use another port on the server to send those messages?
I don't mean this to be a discussion, but I don't know what is common or more logical to do - any advice?
On the client-side, I am planning for it to have one thread for sending messages to the server, and another thread for receiving. Please let me know if any other information is required!
edit
At the moment it is a 1-server-to-multiple(tens now, hundreds later)-client program - I seem to have problems with the client receiving messages from my server (I am troubleshooting so I thought that using the same ports might be the problem), but I will try it with the same ports again and see. I thought it might be a matter of the receiving port being too busy to send messages as well.
At the moment all the clients are sending messages to the same port (as far as I can tell).
What do you mean 'as far as I can tell'? You must know whether you are opening more than one port at the server.
Does it make sense to use another port on the server to send those messages?
No it doesn't. If you're using TCP, send the messages back down the same socket. If you're using UDP you don't need more than one UDP socket, and it simplifies the client and the application protocol if replies come from the same ip:port the request was sent from.
The idea i'm having is that clients can connect to a chat room on a server and communicate with each other. In the chat room you should also be able to target another user and they should be able to talk with each other.
Now to the problem. I'm not sure which way is the easiest/best way to implement this. For the chat room I thought of when a user writes something, the message is sent to the server and the server then echoes that message to the other clients. Not sure what other options I have.
What i'm most confused about is how I can make only 2 clients talk to each other. Either the server act as a proxy and just forward the messages to the other client, this seem inefficient though. The only alternative to this I can think of is that the 2 clients establish a connection between each other. Which implementation is most common in order to achieve this?
I am using unix sockets with C++.
There are a few options for many-to-many chat and one-to-one chat. However, the only reasonably sane option for many-to-many chat is to do as you've said: send a message to the centralized server, the server relays the message to all other connected clients (or, in the same "room" / "channel").
For one-to-one chat, I recommend that you follow the same exact model: it's just a special case of the many-many chat relay in which the message is sent by the server, as a proxy, to only one other connected client. This is simple, and it hides every client's IP address from every other.
However, if the one-to-one communication were to become more voluminous than chat (e.g., a file transfer), direct one-to-one communication may be appropriate. In this case, the server should relay the initiation of a direct, peer-to-peer communication channel to the remote user, probably exchanging IP addresses upon setup, and the clients would then connect directly to each other for their special-purpose direct communication (while usually, though optionally, remaining connected to the server).
Thus, one-to-one communication is normally proxied by the server as in the general case of many-to-many, and the degree to which that practice is inefficient is superficial. Special purpose one-to-one communication (file transfers, VoIP, etc.) are done with direct client-to-client connections usually orchestrated at first by the server (i.e., to prepare each side for direct communication).
Implementation hint: the server is all TCP. Read about non-blocking sockets, the POSIX system call poll, and let the idea of message framing over TCP roll around in your head. You can then skip multithreading [and scalability] issues in the server code. The clients, besides speaking the same custom TCP protocol as your server, are up to you.
Well you can implement a multi-threaded client/server. A single "server" relaying the messages is the right way to go(to preserve global ordering of messages). Also think about leader election algorithms(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bully_algorithm) for example in case your "server" goes down. Check out
Another way to do this would be to use signals and event-driven programming.
I currently have a basic chat program in c++ that uses WinSock2.h with UDP. Currently the user is able to send a message to the server and the server just sends the same message back. I was wondering where do I go from here (i'm not asking for code). I was wondering how I should go forward in having the messages get sent to another client that is also connected to the server.
If I need to explain what I have done already please let me know.
All suggestions are greatly appreciated.
Thanks
You would have a list of currently connected users, when a user sends a message, it would then post it to all connected users.
Your server would keep track of who is connected, and remove those who get disconnected. When someone connect or disconnects, it would send a notification to all currently connected users, telling them of this notification.
All this is not specific to UDP, infact, TCP would probably be better for this type of messaging as you do not have to worry about messages being dropped. UDP should only be used where performance is of upmost importance, like real-time gaming, voice chat.
When you're saying "connected" (in the context of clients) - what exactly do you mean?? Because you say you're using UDP in your program.
In the UDP protocol there's no "connected" state, unless you implement it.
In the TCP protocol however, there is (implemented within the protocol itself).
Furthermore, the basic idea of "broadcasting" a message is simple - keep a list of connected clients.
Add a client when it connects. Remove it from the list when it disconnects.
Then when you want to send a message to everyone you just iterate through this list.
Again, you'll have to receive those dis/connect events before you could keep track of "connected" clients.
If you go with TCP instead of UDP then you're set.
Good luck.
Basically, like Matthew said, you need to store all the current connections to the server. When a socket connects you can store a reference to that socket. Now whenever a client sends a message you can rebroadcast that to all the sockets. Now you have to handle when sockets disconnect as well since you don't want to store a bunch of closed sockets.
I have to develop a software to send same packets to multiple destination.
But i must not use multicast scheme.!!!! ( because my boss is a stupid man )
so, any way, the problem is that:
i have same packets and multiple IP address ( clients) and i can not use multicast
how can i do that in the best way?
i must use c++ as a language and Linux as a platform.
so please help me
Thanx
If your boss said you can't use multicast, maybe he/she has his/her reason. I guess broadcasting is out of the game too?
If these are the requisites, your only chance is to establish a TCP connection with every remote host you want to send packet to.
EDIT
UDP, conversely, would not provide much benefit over multicasting if your application will run over a LAN you are in charge for configuration of, that's the reason I specified TCP.
Maybe you have to describe your scenario a little better.
This could be done with either TCP or UDP depending on your reliability requirements. Can you tolerate lost or reordered packets? Are you prepared to handle timeouts and retransmission? If both answers are "yes", pick UDP. Otherwise stay with TCP. Then:
TCP case. Instead of single multicast UDP socket you would have a number of TCP sockets, one per destination. You will have to figure out the best scheme for connection establishment. Regular listening and accepting connecting clients works as usual. Then you just iterate over connected sockets and send your data to each one.
UDP case. This could be done with single UDP socket on the server side. If you know the IPs and ports of the clients (data receivers) use sendto(2) on the same data for each address/port. The clients would have to be recv(2)-ing at that time. If you don't know your clients upfront you'd need to devise a scheme for clients to request the data, or just register with the server. That's where recvfrom(2) is usefull - it gives you the address of the client.
You have restricted yourself by saying no to multicast. I guess sending packets to multiple clients is just a part of your requirement and unless you throw more light, it will be difficult to provide a complete solution.
Are you expecting two way communication between the client and the server ? in that case choosing multicast may prove complex. please clarify
You have to iterate through the clients and send packets one after another. You may want to persist the sessions if you are expecting response from the clients back.
Choice of UDP or TCP again depends on the nature of data being sent. with UDP you would need to handle out of sequence packets and also need to implement re-transmission.
You'll have to create a TCP Listerner on your server running at a particular port listening for incoming Tcp Client connections (Sockets).
Every time a client connects, you'll have to cache it in some kind of datastructre like a Name value pair (name being a unique name for the client amd value being the Network Stream of that client obtained as a result of the TCP socket).
Then when you are finally ready to transmit the data you could either iterate through this collection of name value pair connections and send them data as byte array one by one to each client or spawm off one thread per connected client and have it send the data concurrently.
TCP is a bulky protocol (due to its connection-oriented nature) and transmission of large data (like videos/images) can be quite slow.
UDP is definitely the choice for streaming large data packets but you'll have to trade-off with the delivery gurantee.
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