I am making a program which sends UDP packets to a server at a fixed interval, something like this:
while (!stop) {
Sleep(fixedInterval);
send(sock, pkt, payloadSize, flags);
}
However the periodicity cannot be guaranteed because send is a blocking call (e.g., when fixedInterval is 20ms, and a call to send is > 20ms ). Do you know how I can turn the send into a non-blocking operation?
You need to use a non-blocking socket. The send/receive functions are the same functions for blocking or non-blocking operations, but you must set the socket itself to non-blocking.
u_long mode = 1; // 1 to enable non-blocking socket
ioctlsocket(sock, FIONBIO, &mode);
Also, be aware that working with non-blocking sockets is quite different. You'll need to make sure you handle WSAEWOULDBLOCK errors as success! :)
So, using non-blocking sockets may help, but still will not guarantee an exact period. You would be better to drive this from a timer, rather than this simple loop, so that any latency from calling send, even in non-blocking mode, will not affect the timing.
The API ioctlsocket can do it.You can use it as below.But why don't you use I/O models in winsock?
ioctlsocket(hsock,FIOBIO,(unsigned long *)&ul);
My memory is fuzzy here since it's probably been 15 years since I've used UDP non-blocking.
However, there are some things of which you should be aware.
Send only smallish packets if you're going over a public network. The PATH MTU can trip you up if either the client or the server is not written to take care of incomplete packets.
Make sure you check that you have sent the number of bytes you think you have to send. It can get weird when you're expecting to see 300 bytes sent and the receiving end only gets 248. Both client side and server side have to be aware of this issue.
See here for some good advice from the Linux folks.
See here for the Unix Socket FAQ for UDP
This is a good, general network programming FAQ and example page.
How about measuring the time Send takes and then just sleeping the time missing up to the 20ms?
Related
I have a server application written in C++. When a client connects, it creates a new thread for him. In that thread there is a BLOCKING reading from a socket. Because there is a possibility for a client to accidentally disconnect and left behind a thread still hanging on the read function, there is a thread that checks if the sockets are still alive by sending "heartbeat messages". The message consists of 1 character and is "ignored" by the client (it is not processed like other messages). The write looks like this:
write(fd, ";", 1);
It works fine, but is it really necessary to send a random character through the socket? I tried to send an empty message ("" with length 0), but it didn't work. Is there any better way to solve this socket checking?
Edit:
I'm using BSD sockets (TCP).
I'm assuming when you say, "socket, you mean a TCP network socket.
If that's true, then the TCP protocol gives you a keepalive option that you would need to ask the OS to use.
I think this StackOverflow answer gets at what you would need to do, assuming a BSDish socket library.
In my experience, using heartbeat messages on TCP (and checking for responses, e.g. NOP/NOP-ACK) is the easiest way to get reliable and timely indication of connectivity at the application layer. The network layer can do some interesting things but getting notification in your application can be tricky.
If you can switch to UDP, you'll have more control and flexibility at the application layer, and probably reduced traffic overall since you can customize the communications, but you'll need to handle reliability, packet ordering, etc. yourself.
You can set connection KEEPALIVE. You may have interests in this link: http://tldp.org/HOWTO/TCP-Keepalive-HOWTO/overview.html
It is ok you create a thread for each new coming requests if it is only toy. In most of time, i use poll, that is non-blocking io, for performance improvement.
I am making a program which sends UDP packets to a server at a fixed interval, something like this:
while (!stop) {
Sleep(fixedInterval);
send(sock, pkt, payloadSize, flags);
}
However the periodicity cannot be guaranteed because send is a blocking call (e.g., when fixedInterval is 20ms, and a call to send is > 20ms ). Do you know how I can turn the send into a non-blocking operation?
You need to use a non-blocking socket. The send/receive functions are the same functions for blocking or non-blocking operations, but you must set the socket itself to non-blocking.
u_long mode = 1; // 1 to enable non-blocking socket
ioctlsocket(sock, FIONBIO, &mode);
Also, be aware that working with non-blocking sockets is quite different. You'll need to make sure you handle WSAEWOULDBLOCK errors as success! :)
So, using non-blocking sockets may help, but still will not guarantee an exact period. You would be better to drive this from a timer, rather than this simple loop, so that any latency from calling send, even in non-blocking mode, will not affect the timing.
The API ioctlsocket can do it.You can use it as below.But why don't you use I/O models in winsock?
ioctlsocket(hsock,FIOBIO,(unsigned long *)&ul);
My memory is fuzzy here since it's probably been 15 years since I've used UDP non-blocking.
However, there are some things of which you should be aware.
Send only smallish packets if you're going over a public network. The PATH MTU can trip you up if either the client or the server is not written to take care of incomplete packets.
Make sure you check that you have sent the number of bytes you think you have to send. It can get weird when you're expecting to see 300 bytes sent and the receiving end only gets 248. Both client side and server side have to be aware of this issue.
See here for some good advice from the Linux folks.
See here for the Unix Socket FAQ for UDP
This is a good, general network programming FAQ and example page.
How about measuring the time Send takes and then just sleeping the time missing up to the 20ms?
I am using Windows socket for my application(winsock2.h). Since the blocking socket doesn't let me control connection timeout, I am using non-blocking one. Right after send command I am using shutdown command to flush(I have to). My timeout is 50ms and the thing I want to know is if the data to be sent is so big, is there a risk of sending only a portion of data or sending nothing at all? Thanks in advance...
hSocket = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_TCP);
u_long iMode=1;
ioctlsocket(hSocket,FIONBIO,&iMode);
connect(hSocket, (sockaddr*)(&sockAddr),sockAddrSize);
send(hSocket, sendbuf, sendlen, 0);
shutdown(hSocket, SD_BOTH);
Sleep(50);
closesocket(hSocket);
Non-blocking TCP socket and flushing right after send?
There is no such thing as flushing a TCP socket.
Since the blocking socket doesn't let me control connection timeout
False. You can use select() on a blocking socket.
I am using non-blocking one.
Non sequitur.
Right after send command I am using shutdown command to flush(I have to).
You don't have to, and shutdown() doesn't flush anything.
My timeout is 50ms
Why? The time to send data depends on the size of the data. Obviously. It does not make any sense whatsoever to use a fixed timeout for a send.
and the thing I want to know is if the data to be sent is so big, is there a risk of sending only a portion of data or sending nothing at all?
In blocking mode, all the data you provided to send() will be sent if possible. In non-blocking mode, the amount of data represented by the return value of send() will be sent, if possible. In either case the connection will be reset if the send fails. Whatever timeout mechanism you superimpose can't possibly change any of that: specifically, closing the socket asynchronously after a timeout will only cause the close to be appended to the data being sent. It will not cause the send to be aborted.
Your code wouldn't pass any code review known to man. There is zero error checking; the sleep is completely pointless; and shutdown before close is redundant. If the sleep is intended to implement a timeout, it doesn't.
I want to be sending data as fast as possible.
You can't. TCP implements flow control. There is exactly nothing you can do about that. You are rate-limited by the receiver.
Also the 2 possible cases are: server waits too long to accept connection
There is no such case. The client can complete a connection before the server ever calls accept(). If you're trying to implement a connect timeout shorter than the default of about a minute, use select().
or receive.
Nothing you can do about that: see above.
So both connecting and writing should be done in max of 50ms since the time is very important in my situation.
See above. It doesn't make sense to implement a fixed timeout for operations that take variable time. And 50ms is far too short for a connect timeout. If that's a real issue you should keep the connection open so that the connect delay only happens once: in fact you should keep TCP connections open as long as possible anyway.
I have to flush both write and read streams
You can't. There is no operation in TCP that will flush either a read stream or a write stream.
because the server keeps sending me unnecessarly big data and I have limited internet connection.
Another non sequitur. If the server sends you data, you have to read it, otherwise you will stall the server, and that doesn't have anything to do with flushing your own write stream.
Actually I don't even want a single byte from the server
Bad luck. You have to read it. [If you were on BSD Unix you could shutdown the socket for input, which would cause data from the server to be thrown away, but that doesn't work on Windows: it causes the server to get a connection reset.]
Thanks to EJP and Martin, now I have created a second thread to check. Also in the code I posted in my question, I added "counter=0;" line after the "send" line and removed shutdown. It works just as I wanted now. It never waits more than 50ms :) Really big thanks
unsigned __stdcall SecondThreadFunc( void* pArguments )
{
while(1)
{
counter++;
if (counter > 49)
{
closesocket(hSocket);
counter = 0;
printf("\rtimeout");
}
Sleep(1);
}
return 0;
}
well..I use a typical model of epoll+multithread to handle massive sockets, that is, I have a thread called epollWorkThread that use epoll_wait to handle i/o sockets. While there's an event of EPOLLIN, recv() will do the work and I do use the noblocking mode to allow immediate return. And recv() is indeed in a while(true) loop.
Everything is fine in the intial time(maybe a couple of hours or maybe minutes or if I'm lucky days), I can receive the information. But some time later, recv() insists to return -1 with the errno = 107(ENOTCONN). The other peer of the transport is written in AS3 which makes sure that the socket is connected. So I'm confused by the recv() behaviour. Thank you in advance and any comment is appreciated!
Errno 107 means that the socket is NOT connected (any more).
There are several reasons why this could happen. Assuming you're right and both sides of the connection claim that the socket is still open, an intermediate router/switch may have dropped the connection due to a timeout. The safest way to avoid such things from happen is to periodically send a 'health' or 'keep-alive' message. (Thus the intermediate router/switch accepts the connection as living...)=
I would like to know if the following scenario is real?!
select() (RD) on non-blocking TCP socket says that the socket is ready
following recv() would return EWOULDBLOCK despite the call to select()
For recv() you would get EAGAIN rather than EWOULDBLOCK, and yes it is possible. Since you have just checked with select() then one of two things happened:
Something else (another thread) has drained the input buffer between select() and recv().
A receive timeout was set on the socket and it expired without data being received.
It's possible, but only in a situation where you have multiple threads/processes trying to read from the same socket.
On Linux it's even documented that this can happen, as I read it.
See this question:
Spurious readiness notification for Select System call
I am aware of an error in a popular desktop operating where O_NONBLOCK TCP sockets, particularly those running over the loopback interface, can sometimes return EAGAIN from recv() after select() reports the socket is ready for reading. In my case, this happens after the other side half-closes the sending stream.
For more details, see the source code for t_nx.ml in the NX library of my OCaml Network Application Environment distribution. (link)
Though my application is a single-threaded one, I noticed that the described behavior is not uncommon in RHEL5. Both with TCP and UDP sockets that were set to O_NONBLOCK (the only socket option that is set). select() reports that the socket is ready but the following recv() returns EAGAIN.
Yes, it's real. Here's one way it can happen:
A future modification to the TCP protocol adds the ability for one side to "revoke" information it sent provided it hasn't been received yet by the other side's application layer. This feature is negotiated on the connection. The other side sends you some data, you get a select hit. Before you can call recv, the other side "revokes" the data using this new extension. Your read gets a "would block" error because no data is available to be read.
The select function is a status-reporting function that does not come with future guarantees. Assuming that a hit on select now assures that a subsequent operation won't block is as invalid as using any other status-reporting function this way. It's as bad as using access to try to ensure a subsequent operation won't fail due to incorrect permissions or using statfs to try to ensure a subsequent write won't fail due to a full disk.
It is possible in a multithreaded environment where two threads are reading from the socket. Is this a multithreaded application?
If you do not call any other syscall between select() and recv() on this socket, then recv() will never return EAGAIN or EWOULDBLOCK.
I don't know what they mean with recv-timeout, however, the POSIX standard does not mention it here so you can be safe calling recv().