System Background:
Its basically a client/server application. Server is an embedded device and Client is a windows app developed in C++.
Issue: After a runtime of about a week, communication breaks between client/server,
because of this the server is not able to connect back to the client and needs a restart to recover. Looks like System is experiencing Socket re-connection problem. Also The network sometimes experiences intermittent failures.
Abrupt Termination at remote end
Port locking
Want some suggestions on how to cleanup the socket or shutdown cleanly so that re-connection happens properly. Other alternate solutions?
Thanks,
Hussain
It does not sound like you are in a position to easily write a stress test app to reproduce this more quickly out of band, which is what I would normally suggest. A pragmatic solution might be to periodically restart the server and client at a time when you think the system is least busy, or when problems arise. This sounds like cheating but many production systems I have been involved with take this approach to maximize system uptime.
My preferred solution here would be to abstract the server and client socket code (hopefully your design allows this to be done without too much work) and use it to implement client and server test apps that can be used to stress test only the socket code by simulating a lot of normal socket traffic in a short space of time - this helps identify timing windows and edge cases that could cause problems over time, and might speed up the process of obtaining a debuggable repro - you can simulate network error in your test code by dropping the socket on the client or server periodically.
A further step to take on the strategic front would be to ensure that you have good diagnostics in your socket handlers on client and server side. Track socket open and close, with special focus on your socket error and reconnect paths given you know the network is unreliable. Make sure the logs are output sequential with a timestamp. Something as simple as this might quickly show you what error or conditions trigger your problems. You can quickly make sure the logs are correct and complete using the test apps I mentioned above.
One thing you might want to check is that you are not being hit by lack of ability to reuse addresses. Sometimes when a socket gets closed, it cannot be immediately reused for a reconnect attempt as there is still residual activity on one or other end. You may be able to get around this (based on my Windows/Winsock experience) by experimenting with SO_REUSEADDR and SO_LINGER on your sockets. however, my first focus in your case would be on ensuring the socket code on client and server handles all errors and mainline cases correctly, before worrying about this.
A common issue is that when a connection is dropped, it is kept opened by the OS in TIME_WAIT state. If you want to restart the server socket, it will not be able to reopen the same port directly because it is still present for the OS.
To avoid that, you need to set the parameter SO_REUSEADDR so that the OS allows you to reuse the port if it is in TIME_WAIT state for a server socket.
Example:
int optval=1;
// set SO_REUSEADDR on a socket to true (1):
setsockopt(s1, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, &optval, sizeof optval);
I'm experiencing something similar with encrypted connections. I believe in my case it is because the client dropped the connection and reconnected in less than the 4 minute FIN_WAIT period. The initial connection is recycled (by the os) and the server doesn't see the drop out. The SSL authentication is lost when the client loses connection so the client tries to re-authenticate. This is during what the servers considers the middle of a conversation. The server then hangs up on the client. I think the server ssl code considers this a man in the middle attack or just gets confused and closes the connection.
Related
I created a small cross-platform app using Qt sockets in C++ (although this is not a C++ or Qt specific question).
The app has a small "ping" feature that tries to connect to a peer and asks for a small challenge (i.e. some custom data sent and some custom data replied) to see if it's alive.
I'm opening one socket per each peer so as soon as the ping starts we have several sockets in SYN_SENT.
Is this a proper way to implement a ping-like protocol with challenge? Am I wasting sockets? Is there a better way I should be doing this?
I'd say your options are:
An actual ping (using ICMP echo packets). This has low overhead, but only tells you whether the host is up. And it requires you to handle lost packets, timeouts, and retransmits.
A UDP-based protocol. This also has lower kernel overhead, but again you'll be responsible for setting up timeouts, handling lost packets, and retransmits. It has the advantage of allowing you to positively affirm that your program is running on the peer. It can be implemented with only a single socket endpoint no matter how many peers you add. (It is also possible that you could send to multiple peers at once with a broadcast if all are on a local network, or a multicast [complicated set-up required for that].)
TCP socket as you're doing now. This is much easier to code, extremely reliable and will automatically provide a timeout (i.e. your connect will eventually fail if the peer doesn't respond). It lets you know positively that your peer is there and running your program. Although there is more kernel overhead to this, and you will use one socket endpoint on your host per peer system, I wouldn't call it a significant issue unless you think you'll be having thousands of peers.
So, in the end, you have to judge: If thousands of hosts will be participating and this pinging is going to happen frequently, you may be better off coding up a UDP solution. If the pinging is rare or you don't expect so many peers, I would go the TCP route. (And I wouldn't consider that a "waste of sockets" -- those advantages are why TCP is so commonly used.)
The technique described in the question doesn't really implement ping for the connection and doesn't test if the connection itself is alive. The technique only checks that the peer is listening for (and is responsive to) new connections...
What you're describing is more of an "is the server up?" test than a "keep-alive" ping.
If we're discussing "keep-alive" pings, than this technique will fail.
For example, if just the read or the write aspect of the connection is closed, you wouldn't know. Also, if the connection was closed improperly (i.e., due to an intermediary dropping the connection), this ping will not expose the issue.
Most importantly, for some network connections and protocols, you wouldn't be resetting the connection's timeout... so if your peer is checking for connection timeouts, this ping won't help.
For a "keep-alive" ping, I would recommend that you implement a protocol specific ping.
Make sure that the ping is performed within the existing (same) connection and never requires you to open a new connection.
i am developing client server application in windows using c++ and winsock lib it work fine but if it is on network and once server listening started and if i remove network cable then server doesn't shows any error in any thread so where server socket knows network cable is unplugged.
if any body knows please help me.
While it should be possible to detect that the network cable is unplugged on the host, you will still have the same problem if the network is disrupted somewhere else between your server and the clients.
One common (if not the most common) way to solve this is to have a "keep-alive" message being sent. If no reply to that message is received within some timeout you simply close the connection and release all resources associated with it.
Edit
A "keep-alive" message is like using the "ping" command to see if a remote machine can be reached. It is simply a message that is sent, either by the server or the client (it doesn't matter who initiate it) to see if the other end of the connection is alive and can be reached.
It can be as simple as sending the string "Are you there?" and expecting a reply containing "Yes I am". If you send it once every minute, and don't get a reply withing (for example) one minute, you can consider the connection being dead. The other end, that receives the "Are you there?", knows it will get the message once every minute. If it hasn't arrived for two minutes then the sender is no longer reachable.
If the protocol can't be modified to add such messages, then see if some other message can be used instead.
Also, remember that the best and some cases only way to know if something is wrong with a connection is to attempt to read from the socket.
You can unplug a network and then plug it back in, or your Wi-Fi laptop can lose reception for a second and then pick it back up. It would be frustrating if such resumable cases were treated as an error in all the programs we use.
From this Winsock "newbie" FAQ:
The previous question deals with detecting when a protocol connection is dropped normally, but what if you want to detect other problems, like unplugged network cables or crashed workstations? In these cases, the failure prevents notifying the remote peer that something is wrong. My feeling is that this is usually a feature, because the broken component might get fixed before anyone notices, so why demand that the connection be reestablished?
If you feel you have a "special needs" situation you can be aggressive with timeouts. But I wouldn't do that unless there was a really good reason.
I have a blocking client/server connected locally via Winsock. The client uses firefox to retrieve data from websites, passing certain data along to the server for extra processing. The server always responds, and the processing can take anywhere from 1/10th second to a few minutes. The client has no winsock connection to anything but the server; all web data is retrieved to hard-drive via firefox.
This setup works quite well until, seemingly randomly, the client's recv returns -1 (SOCKET_ERROR) with error code 10054 (WSAECONNRESET). This means the server supposedly terminated connection, but the server is actually still waiting to recv as if nothing is wrong. The connection has failed in this way as early as 5 minutes in or after working for as long as about an hour and a half. The client sends about 10 different types of requests to the server, and failure has occurred on a variety of them. The frequency of requests is roughly constant, probably an average of 10-15 a minute. When the connection breaks, neither computer experiences internet problems and remote desktop does not disconnect.
Initially I thought memory leaks, but after extensive debugging I am reasonably certain no more exist. Firefox is engaged in considerable HTTP traffic at times, so I thought maybe that could be filling available socket bufferspace or something -- seems doubtful but at this point I'm really not sure. So, could it be more memory leaks, maybe a hidden buffer overrun, too much web traffic? What is causing my Winsock app to randomly fail?
Sounds like a firewall at work.
Many firewalls are configured to terminate idle connections (i.e. open TCP sessions on which no data is transferred for awhile). Especially if it's an HTTP connection, which are typically not persistent.
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.
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