I'm using LibQmi's qmicli in a bash script in order to set up an internet connection using an LTE modem. I would like to reconnect (disconnect/connect cycle) the current network connetion, since it connected over WCDMA, instead of LTE.
A simple power cycle would do the trick, but I'd prefer if there was a better way of doing this. (Especially since I'm currently not home, but I can SSH into the modem remotely)
qmicli provides --wds-stop-network, but it requires a packet handle as argument, which I don't have, nor do I have a way or retrieving it at the moment.
Is there any way to retrieve the packet handle for the current network connection, or is there some other way of forcing it to disconnect?
Related
Currently we receive on port 9020 from a client. That client uses port switching on their end and sometimes we wind up with multiple "Established" connections on the one port - all with different remote ports. We can manually end each established connection and our job will connect again after a few seconds. We can also run ENDTCPCNN for each remote port listed. We are looking for a way to programmatically see if there are multiple remote ports connected to the local port and if so end the established connections (while leaving the Listener running). Does anyone know of a way to get the information?
To answer your question, assuming you are on a supported version of the OS, take a look at the QSYS2.NETSTAT_INFO SQL view.
select local_port, remote_port, protocol, tcp_state, idle_time, network_connection_type
from qsys2.netstat_info
where local_port = 9020;
Otherwise, you'd need to use the List Network Connections and Retrieve Network Connection Data APIs yourself.
But are you sure you need to do this? Sounds like the client is leaving the connection open for re-use. That's a good thing for performance. You server code should be automatically timing out and closing idle connections.
I have some data aquisition devices in industrial machinery that have 4G connectivity. Right now I make them to stream the intrumentation data in real time to my server through raw TCP/IP protocol. But this has some problems:
The machinery sometimes work in places where there is low or null mobile connectivity. If there is no connectivity for too long it can happen two things: a) the machine gets shutted down and the tcp/ip buffer it's lost along with the instrumentation data or b) the tcp/ip buffer overflows, which has the same results.
The same as point 1, but for the server side, due to maintenance or if something in the server fails in the weekend when nobody is going to notice it but the machinery can be ON and working. Then we can have data loss in the same way as point 1.
I have to manage authentication and the connection of all the clients into a server single TCP port. I have done some temporary hack that works for the moment but isn't the best. But this is another problem and it's not the reason of this question, so take it only for context.
So, I should code an application layer acknowledge where the server tells the client when a high-level message (not the individual TCP packets) has been received and processed. And in the client side to have a buffer writted in-disk where data is being deleted as is being confirmed by the server. This, to solve points 1 & 2.
But I'm afraid that I'm reinventing the wheel or that I don't know the correct tools, because I think that this problem should be more or less common but I fail to google for it and I can't find a library or tool that does this job.
What I was thinking about is something that in the remote client is listenning in a local TCP port for incomming data from the DAQ software, once it receives a message it streams it to the server and writes it to the local disk. In the server, the tool receives the message and re-streams it over local network to the final server. Then, notifies the client that is able to delete the message from its disk buffer.
So, the question is, there is something already done? I would prefer an already compiled / language agnostic solution because I code in LabView and I know there isn't like that in its ecosystem, but I'm open to everything. If there isn't anything like that, any advice in what to do / to avoid when developing it myself?
Thanks for your time.
I'm not sure if this is the correct place to ask, so forgive me if it isn't.
I'm writing computer monitoring software that needs to connect to a server. The server may send out relatively urgent messages, such as sound or cancel an alarm, and the client may send out data about the computer, such as screenshots. The data that the client sends isn't too critical on timing, but shouldn't be more than a two minutes late.
It is essential to the software that portforwarding need not be set up, and it is assumed that the internet connection will be done through a wireless router that has NAT almost all the time.
My idea is to have a TCP connection initiated from the client, and use that to transfer data. Ideally, I would have no data being sent when it is not needed, but I believe this to be impossible. Would sending the equivalent of a ping every now and again keep the connection alive, and what sort of bandwidth would it use if this program was running all the time on the computer? In addition, would it be possible to reduce the header size for these keep-alives?
Before I start designing the communication and programming, is this plan for connection flawed? Are there better alternatives?
Thanks!
1) You do not need to send 'ping' data to keep the connection alive, the TCP stack does this automatically; one reason for sending 'ping' data would be to detect a connection close on the client side - typically you only find out something has gone wrong when you try and read/write from the socket. There may be a way to change various time-outs so you can detect this condition faster.
2) In general while TCP provides a stream-oriented error free channel, it makes no guarantees about timeliness, if you are using it on the internet it is even more unpredictable.
3) For applications such as this (I hope you are making it for ethical purposes) - I would tend to use TCP, since you don't want a situation where the client receives a packet to raise an alarm but misses that one that turns it off again.
I would want to send a message from the server actively, such as using UDP/TCPIP to a client using an arduino. It is known that this is possible if the user has port forward the specific port to the device on local network. However I wouldn't want to have the user to port forward manually, perhaps using another protocol, will this be possible?
1 Arduino Side
I think the closest you can get to this is opening a connection to the server from the arduino, then use available to wait for the server to stream some data to the arduino. Your code will be polling the open connection, but you are avoiding all the back and forth communications to open and close the connection, passing headers back and forth etc.
2 Server Side
This means the bulk of the work will be on the server side, where you will need to manage open connections so you can instantly write to them when a user triggers some event which requires a message to be pushed to the arduino. How to do this varies a bit depending on what type of server application you are running.
2.1 Node.js "walk-through" of main issues
In Node.js for example, you can res.write() on a connection, without closing it - this should give a similar effect as having an open serial connection to the arduino. That leaves you with the issue of managing the connection - should the server periodically check a database for messages for the arduino? That simply removes one link from the arduino -> server -> database polling link, so we should be able to do better.
We can attach a function triggered by the event of a message being added to the database. Node-orm2 is a database Object Relational Model driver for node.js, and it offers hooks such as afterSave and afterCreate which you can utilize for this type of thing. Depending on your application, you may be better off not using a database at all and simply using javascript objects.
The only remaining issue then, is: once the hook is activated, how do we get the correct connection into scope so we can write to it? Well you can save all the relevant data you have on the request to some global data structure, maybe a dictionary with an arduino ID as index, and in the triggered function you fetch all the data, i.e. the request context and you write to it!
See this blog post for a great example, including node.js code which manages open connections, closing them properly and clearing from memory on timeout etc.
3 Conclusion
I haven't tested this myself - but I plan to since I already have an existing application using arduino and node.js which is currently implemented using normal polling. Hopefully I will get around to it soon and return here with results.
Typically in long-polling (from what I've read) the connection is closed once data is sent back to the client (arduino), although I don't see why this would be necessary. I plan to try keeping the same connection open for multiple messages, only closing after a fixed time interval to re-establish the connection - and I hope to set this interval fairly high, 5-15 minutes maybe.
We use Pubnub to send notifications to a client web browser so a user can know immediately when they have received a "message" and stuff like that. It works great.
This seems to have the same constraints that you are looking at: No static IP, no port forwarding. User can theoretically just plug the thing in...
It looks like Pubnub has an Arduino library:
https://github.com/pubnub/arduino
The client use ssh login and start up a server on remote machine, then the clinet create a tcp connect to the server.
The server need exit when the client has exit normally or crashed or network is dropped.
So the question is how to detect if the client which the server has connected to is crashed.
The first try is using error() signal, catch QAbsoluteSocket::NetworkError to determine the network has dropped. But I can't receive error() signal at all even if i pull out the network cable.
The second try is using the SocketState, i think whenever SocketState is UnconnectedState,the client may has exit normally and the server should exit too. This way works fine for "normal exit", but I don't know how to deal with "crash" and "dead network".
Help me, thanks!
I'd recommend using TCP keep alive. It is not exposed through the public QTcpSocket interface, but you can use setsockopt with QAbstractSocker::socketDescriptor to activate the SO_KEEPALIVE feature.
EDIT: It appears that keep alive was added to QAbstractSocket at some point. So, simply call QAbstractSocket::setSocketOption with QAbstractSocket::KeepAliveOption.
You can find information about adjusting the timeout of keep alive request here: http://www.gnugk.org/keepalive.html
Most of the time, the only way you will know there is a problem with a socket connection is when you try to read or write with it. There are some exceptions: Windows will change the state of sockets if the network cable is unplugged, Linux (in my experience) will not.
The most reliable way to detect connection problems is to have the client regularly send a small message at an agreed upon interval with the server. If the server does not see this message within a reasonable time, it should consider the client dead and drop the connection. This will also give both sides regular opportunities to detect a problem via reads and writes.