I'm using Linux and trying to send a long message through send(). The message is 1270 bytes, but my client application is only receiving 1024 bytes.
Since 1024 bytes is such a convenient number, I'm guessing that send() can only send 1024 bytes at a time.
I looked at the man page for send, but all it says about long messages is:
When the message does not fit into the send buffer of the socket, send()
normally blocks, unless the socket has been placed in nonblocking I/O
mode. In nonblocking mode it would fail with the error EAGAIN or EWOULD-
BLOCK in this case. The select(2) call may be used to determine when it
is possible to send more data.
I'm using blocking mode, and the man page doesn't say what to do.
My exact call to send looks like this:
send(socket, message, strlen(message), 0);
Would I need to split up the string into 1024 byte chunks and send them separately? And how would my client handle this? If my client needs to do anything, I'll just mention that it's in Java and it uses InputStreamReader to receive data.
There is a misunderstanding on your part as to how send actually works. It does not send whatever you throw at it, it sends at most the number of bytes you pass in as a parameter. That means you have to check the return value of send, remove the number of bytes that actually got send from your send queue and try to send the remaining stuff with another call to send. Same holds true for recv, by the way.
In addition to what Jim Brissom said, it is worth pointing out that SOCK_STREAM sockets (ie. TCP) do not have a concept of message boundaries - the connection is just one long unstructured stream of bytes.
Just because you sent 100 bytes (say) with one send() call does not mean it will arrive as 100 bytes one recv() call. In the extreme, it may arrive in 100 separate recv()s of 1 byte each - or at the other, it may arrive as part of a larger recv(), along with prior or following data.
Your receiver must be able to handle this - if you need to define individual messages within the stream, you must impose some sort of structure upon the stream yourself, at the application layer.
Related
I have a simple client which accepts a single uint32_t from the server through a socket. Using the solution that appeared here many times (e.g. transfer integer over a socket in C) seems to work, but:
When calling "read" on files I know that the system is not guaranteed to read the entire content of the message at once, and it therefore returns the number of bytes read. Couldn't the same happen when accepting 4 bytes over a network socket?
If this can't happen, why is that? and if it can, how is it possible to make sure the send is "atomic", or is it necessary to piece back the bytes myself?
Depending on the socket type, different protocols can be used. SOCK_STREAM (correspond to TCP on network sockets) is a stream oriented protocol, so packets may be re-combined by the sender, the receiver or any equipement in the middle.
But SOCK_DGRAM (UDP) or SOCK_SEQPACKET actually send packets that cannot be changed. In that case 4 bytes in the same packet are guaranteed be be available in the same read operation, except if the receive buffer is too small. From man socket:
If a message is too long to fit in the supplied buffer, excess
bytes may be discarded depending on the type of socket the message is
received from
So if you want to have atomic blocs, use a packet protocol and not a stream one, and make sure to have large enough receive buffers.
When calling "read" on files I know that the system is not guaranteed
to read the entire content of the message at once
That is wrong, if the requested number of bytes is available they are read:
POSIX read manual says: The value returned may be less than nbyte if the number of bytes left
in the file is less than nbyte
This is at least correct for regular files, for pipes and alike it is a different story.
Couldn't the same happen when accepting 4 bytes over a network socket?
(I suppose you are talking about TCP sockets.) That may happen with socket because underlying protocol may transport your byte in any suitable manner (read about TCP fragmentation for example), the only thing ensured is that if received bytes are received in the same order that they have been sent. So, to read a given number of bytes you have to try to read those bytes eventually with several reads. This is usually made by looping over the read until needed bytes are received and read.
If the underlying protocol is TCP/IP, which is stream-oriented (there are no "packets" or "messages", just two byte streams), then yes.
You need to take care to manage the amount of read data so that you can know where each "message" (in your case, a single integer) begins and ends.
I wrote a simple C socket program that sends an INIT package to the server to indicate to prepare a text transfer. The server does not sends any data back at that time.
After sending the INIT package the client sends a GET package and waits for chunks of data from the server.
So every time the server receives a GET package it will send a chunk of data to the client.
So far so good. The buffer has a size of 512 bytes, a chunk is 100 Bytes plus a little overhead big.
But my problem is that the client does not receive the second message.
So my guess is that read() will blpck until the buffer is full. Is that right or what might be the reason for that?
It depends. For TCP sockets read may return before the buffer is full, and you may need to receive in a loop to get a whole message. For UDP sockets the size you read is typically the size of a single packet (datagram) and then read may block until it has read all the requested data.
The answer is no: read() on a tcp/ip socket will not block until the buffer has the amount of data you requested. read() will return immediately in all cases if any data is available, even if your socket is blocking and you've requested more data than is available.
Keep in mind that TCP/IP is a byte stream protocol and you must treat it as such. The interface is under no obligation to transmit your data together in a single packet, as long as it is presented to you in the order you placed it in the socket.
The answer is no , read is not blocking call , You can refer below points to guess the error
Several Checkpoints you can find :
Find out what read is returning at the second time .
memset the buffer every time in while before recv
use fflush(stdout) if not able to output.
Make sure all three are present . if problem not solved yet .please post source code here
In Receiver, I have
recvfd=accept(sockfd,&other_side,&len);
while(1)
{
recv(recvfd,buf,MAX_BYTES-1,0);
buf[MAX_BYTES]='\0';
printf("\n Number %d contents :%s\n",counter,buf);
counter++;
}
In Sender , I have
send(sockfd,mesg,(size_t)length,0);
send(sockfd,mesg,(size_t)length,0);
send(sockfd,mesg,(size_t)length,0);
MAX_BYTES is 1024 and length of mesg is 15. Currently, It calls recv only one time. I want recv function to be called three times for each corresponding send. How do I achieve it?
In short: yes, it is blocking. But not in the way you think.
recv() blocks until any data is readable. But you don't know the size in advance.
In your scenario, you could do the following:
call select() and put the socket where you want to read from into the READ FD set
when select() returns with a positive number, your socket has data ready to be read
then, check if you could receive length bytes from the socket:
recv(recvfd, buf, MAX_BYTES-1, MSG_PEEK), see man recv(2) for the MSG_PEEK param or look at MSDN, they have it as well
now you know how much data is available
if there's less than length available, return and do nothing
if there's at least length available, read length and return (if there's more than length available, we'll continue with step 2 since a new READ event will be signalled by select()
To send discrete messages over a byte stream protocol, you have to encode messages into some kind of framing language. The network can chop up the protocol into arbitrarily sized packets, and so the receives do not correlate with your messages in any way. The receiver has to implement a state machine which recognizes frames.
A simple framing protocol is to have some length field (say two octets: 16 bits, for a maximum frame length of 65535 bytes). The length field is followed by exactly that many bytes.
You must not even assume that the length field itself is received all at once. You might ask for two bytes, but recv could return just one. This won't happen for the very first message received from the socket, because network (or local IPC pipe, for that matter) segments are never just one byte long. But somewhere in the middle of the stream, it is possible that the fist byte of the 16 bit length field could land on the last position of one network frame.
An easy way to deal with this is to use a buffered I/O library instead of raw operating system file handles. In a POSIX environment, you can take an open socket handle, and use the fdopen function to associate it with a FILE * stream. Then you can use functions like getc and fread to simplify the input handling (somewhat).
If in-band framing is not acceptable, then you have to use a protocol which supports framing, namely datagram type sockets. The main disadvantage of this is that the principal datagram-based protocol used over IP is UDP, and UDP is unreliable. This brings in a lot of complexity in your application to deal with out of order and missing frames. The size of the frames is also restricted by the maximum IP datagram size which is about 64 kilobytes, including all the protocol headers.
Large UDP datagrams get fragmented, which, if there is unreliability in the network, adds up to greater unreliability: if any IP fragment is lost, the entire packet is lost. All of it must be retransmitted; there is no way to just get a repetition of the fragment that was lost. The TCP protocol performs "path MTU discovery" to adjust its segment size so that IP fragmentation is avoided, and TCP has selective retransmission to recover missing segments.
I bet you've created a TCP socket using SOCK_STREAM, which would cause the three messages to be read into your buffer during the first recv call. If you want to read the messages one-by-one, create a UPD socket using SOCK_DGRAM, or develop some type of message format which allows you to parse your messages when they arrive in a stream (assuming your messages will not always be fixed length).
First send the length to be received in a fixed format regarding the size of length in bytes you use to transmit this length, then make recv() loop until length bytes had been received.
Note the fact (as also already mentioned by other answers), that the size and number of chunks received do not necessarly need to be the same as sent. Only the sum of all bytes received shall be the same as the sum of all bytes sent.
Read the man pages for recvand send. Especially read the sections on what those functions RETURN.
recv will block until the entire buffer is filled, or the socket is closed.
If you want to read length bytes and return, then you must only pass to recv a buffer of size length.
You can use select to determine if
there are any bytes waiting to be read,
how many bytes are waiting to be read, then
read only those bytes
This can avoid recv from blocking.
Edit:
After re-reading the docs, the following may be true: your three "messages" may be being read all-at-once since length + length + length < MAX_BYTES - 1.
Another possibility, if recv is never returning, is that you may need to flush your socket from the sender-side. The data may be waiting in a buffer to actually be sent to the receiver.
I'm attempting to write a simple server using C system calls that takes unknown byte streams from unknown clients and executes specific actions depending on client input. For example, the client will send a command "multiply 2 2" and the server will multiply the numbers and return the result.
In order to avoid errors where the server reads before the client has written, I have a blocking recv() call to wait for any data using MSG_PEEK. When recv detects data to be read, I move onto non-blocking recv()'s that read the stream byte by byte.
Everything works except in the corner case where the client sends no data (i.e. write(socket, "", 0); ). I was wondering how exactly I would detect that a message with no data is sent. In this case, recv() blocks forever.
Also, this post pretty much sums up my problem, but it doesn't suggest a way to detect a size 0 packet.
What value will recv() return if it receives a valid TCP packet with payload sized 0
When using TCP at the send/recv level you are not privy to the packet traffic that goes into making the stream. When you send a nonzero number of bytes over a TCP stream the sequence number increases by the number of bytes. That's how both sides know where the other is in terms of successful exchange of data. Sending multiple packets with the same sequence number doesn't mean that the client did anything (such as your write(s, "", 0) example), it just means that the client wants to communicate some other piece of information (for example, an ACK of data flowing the other way). You can't directly see things like retransmits, duplicate ACKs, or other anomalies like that when operating at the stream level.
The answer you linked says much the same thing.
Everything works except in the corner case where the client sends no data (i.e. write(socket, "", 0); ).
write(socket, "", 0) isn't even a send in the first place. It's just a local API call that does nothing on the network.
I was wondering how exactly I would detect that a message with no data is sent.
No message is sent, so there is nothing to detect.
In this case, recv() blocks forever.
I agree.
I have a blocking recv() call to wait for any data using MSG_PEEK. When recv detects data to be read, I move onto non-blocking recv()'s that read the stream byte by byte.
Instead of using recv(MSG_PEEK), you should be using select(), poll(), or epoll() to detect when data arrives, then call recv() to read it.
I'm implementing a small application using UDP (in C). A server sends to a client the data from a given file in chunks of given amount (ex. 100 bytes / call). The client downloads the file and saves it somewhere. The catch is that the client can receive a parameter saying how many bytes to read / call.
My problem is when the server sends 100 bytes / call, and the client is set to read only 15 bytes / call. The other 85 bytes are lost, because the message is removed from the UDP queue.
Is there a way to read these messages in chunks without removing them from the queue until they're completely read?
UDP does not allow for chunked reading like TCP does. Reading a UDP message is an all-or-nothing operation, you either read the whole message in full or none of it at all. There is no in-between. Because of that, UDP-based protocols either use fixed-sized messages, or require both parties to dynamically negotiate the message sizes (like TrivialFTP does, for example).
There is no reason for a UDP protocol to require sending a byte size for each message. The message size itself implicitly dictates the size of the data inside of the message.
If you absolutely must determine the message size before actually reading the message, you could try calling recvfrom() with the MSG_PEEK flag, and give it a large buffer to copy data into (at least 64K, which a UDP message will never exceed, unless you are using IPv6 Jumbograms, but that is a separate issue). The output will tell you the actual size of the message that is still in the queue. However, if you go this route, then you may as well just drop the MSG_PEEK flag and always read using 64K buffers so there is no possibility of dropping data due to insufficient buffer sizes.
You can create a Thread to read the data from UDP Buffer infinitely And save the data to a circle-buffer. Than the client consume the data with your speed. If the Buffer is overflow,You can do nothing.Because the server's sending speed is quicker than the client's.