Suppose a client sends insert(0, "A"), but the connection is interrupted and no response is not received. The client can reconnect.
If the client discards the outstanding change, then it will be lost if the server did not receive it.
If the client retransmits the outstanding change, then it will be duplicated if the server did receive it.
Does operation transforms address how this case is to be handled?
I'd say this is outside the specific scope of operation transformation. It depends on the protocol used for communicating with the server. (Also note that not all applications of operation transformation rely on a central server).
If a central server is used, usually the server sends an acknowledgment to signal that it received an operation. However, what happens if the ACK signal gets lost? This can be mitigated e.g. by assigning an ID to operations: if the server has already seen an operation with the same ID, it will simply ignore the operation and re-send the ACK.
Related
When connection sets up, there is:
Client ------SYN-----> Server
Client <---ACK/SYN---- Server ----①
Client ------ACK-----> Server
and when termination comes, there is:
Client ------FIN-----> Server
Client <-----ACK------ Server ----②
Client <-----FIN------ Server ----③
Client ------ACK-----> Server
my question is why ② and ③ can not set in the same package like ① which is ACK and SYN set in one package ???
After googling a lot, I recognized that the four-way is actually two pairs of two-way handshakes.
If termination is a REAL four-way actions, the 2 and 3 indeed can be set 1 at the same packet.
But this a two-phase work: the first phase (i.e. the first two-way handshake) is :
Client ------FIN-----> Server
Client <-----ACK------ Server
At this moment the client has been in FIN_WAIT_2 state waiting for a FIN from Server. As a bidirectional and full-duplex protocol, at present one direction has break down, no more data would be sent, but receiving still work, client has to wait for the other "half-duplex" to be terminated.
While the FIN from the Server was sent to Client, then Client response a ACK to terminate the connection.
Concluding note: the 2 and 3 can not merge into one package, because they belong to different states. But, if server has no more data or no data at all to be sent when received the FIN from client, it's ok to merge 2 and 3 in one package.
References:
http://www.tcpipguide.com/free/t_TCPConnectionTermination-2.htm
http://www.tcpipguide.com/free/t_TCPConnectionEstablishmentProcessTheThreeWayHandsh-3.htm
http://www.tcpipguide.com/free/t_TCPOperationalOverviewandtheTCPFiniteStateMachineF-2.htm
I think of course the 2 and 3 can merge technically, but not flexible enough as not atomic.
The first FIN1 C to S means and only means: I would close on my way of communication.
The first ACK1 S to C means a response to FIN1. OK, I know your channel is disconnected but for my S(server) way connection, I'm not sure yet. Maybe my receiving buffer is not fully handled yet. The time I need is uncertain.
Thus 2 and 3 are not appropriate to merge. Only the server would have right to decide when his way of connection can be disconnected.
From Wikipedia - "It is also possible to terminate the connection by a 3-way handshake, when host A sends a FIN and host B replies with a FIN & ACK (merely combines 2 steps into one) and host A replies with an ACK.[14]"
Source:
Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_Control_Protocol
[14] - Tanenbaum, Andrew S. (2003-03-17). Computer Networks (Fourth ed.). Prentice Hall. ISBN 0-13-066102-3.
Based on this document, we can see the detail process of the four way handshake as follows
The ACK (marked as ②) is send by TCP stack automatically. And the next FIN (marked as ③) is controlled in application level by calling close socket API. Application has the control to terminate the connection. So in common case, we didn't merge this two packets into one.
In contrast, the ACK/SYN (marked as ①) is send by TCP stack automatically. In the TCP connection establishment stage, the process is straightforward and easier, so TCP stack handles this by default.
If this is observed from the angle of coding, it is more reasonable to have 4 way than 3 way although both are possible ways for use.
When a connection is to be terminated by one side, there are multiple possibilities or states that the peer may have. At least one is normal, one is on transmitting or receiving, one is in disconnected state somehow all of a sudden before this initiation.
The way of termination should take at least above three into consideration for they all have high probabilities to happen in real life.
So it becomes more natural to find out why based on above. If the peer is in offline state, then things are quite easy for client to infer the peer state by delving into the packet content captured in the procedure since the first ack msg could not be received from peer. But if the two messages are combined together, then it becomes much difficult for the client to know why the peer does not respond because not only offline state could lead to the packet missing but also the various exceptions in the procedure of processing in server side could make this happen. Not to mention the client needs to wait large amount of time until timeout. With the additional 1 message, the two problems could become more easier
to handle from client side.
The reason for it looks like coding because the information contained in the message is just like the log of code.
In the Three-Way Handshake (connection setup) : The server must acknowledge (ACK) the client's SYN and the server must also send its own SYN containing the initial sequence number for the data that the server will send on the connection.
That why the server sends its SYN and the ACK of the client's SYN in a single segment.
In connection Termination : it takes four segments to terminate a connection since a FIN and an ACK are required in each direction.
(2) means that The received FIN (first segment) is acknowledged (ACK) by TCP
(3) means that sometime later the application that received the end-of-file will close its socket. This causes its TCP to send a FIN.
And then the last segment will mean that The TCP on the system that receives this final FIN acknowledges (ACK) the FIN.
When I read about websockets, heartbeats are usually mentioned as a must have. MDN even writes about a special opcode for heartbeats.
But are heartbeats a mandatory part of websockets? Do I have to implement it or else my websockets will be terminated by the browsers or some other standards?
The RFC 6455, the current reference for the WebSocket protocol, defines some control frames to communicate state about the WebSocket:
Close: 0x8
Ping: 0x9
Pong: 0xA
Ping and Pong are used for heartbeat and allows you to check if the client is still responsive. See the quote below:
A Ping frame may serve either as a keepalive or as a means to
verify that the remote endpoint is still responsive.
But when the client gets a Ping, a Pong must be sent back to the server. See the quote:
Upon receipt of a Ping frame, an endpoint MUST send a Pong frame in
response, unless it already received a Close frame. It SHOULD
respond with Pong frame as soon as is practical.
Bottom line
When designing both client and server, supporting heartbeats is up to you. But if you need to check if the connection is still alive, Ping and Pong frames are the standard way to do it.
Just keep in mind that if a Ping is sent and a Pong is not sent back, one peer may assume that the other peer is not alive anymore.
It is mandatory or not depending on client and server implementations. If you are connected to a server that requires you to answer the PING with a PONG, you will be probably disconnected in case you don't reply. Same if you are the server and a client is sending you PING.
Server and client implementations vary (there are a myriad of them), but
the browser´s javascript client do not send PING, and do not provide any API to do so, although It replies to PINGs with PONGs.
Pings and Pongs are not mandatory. They are useful, since they allow the detection of dropped connections. (Without some traffic on the wire, there is no way to detect a dropped connection.)
Note that in the browser, WebSocket heartbeats are not accessible. If you require your browser client code to detect dropped connections, then you have to implement hearbeating on the application level.
I understand an HTTP request will result in a response with a code and optional body.
If we call the originator of the request the 'client' and the recipient of the request the 'server'.
Then the sequence is
Client sends request
Server receives request
Server sends response
Client receive response
Is it possible for the Server to complete step 3 but step 4 does not happen (due to dropped connection, application error etc).
In other words: is it possible for the Server to 'believe' the client should have received the response, but the client for some reason has not?
Network is inherently unreliable. You can only know for sure a message arrived if the other party has acknowledged it, but you never know it did not.
Worse, with HTTP, the only acknowledge for the request is the answer and there is no acknowledge for the answer. That means:
The client knows the server has processed the request if it got the response. If it does not, it does not know whether the request was processed.
The server never knows whether the client got the answer.
The TCP stack does normally acknowledge the answer when closing the socket, but that information is not propagated to the application layer and it would not be useful there, because the stack can acknowledge receipt and then the application might not process the message anyway because it crashes (or power failed or something) and from perspective of the application it does not matter whether the reason was in the TCP stack or above it—either way the message was not processed.
The easiest way to handle this is to use idempotent operations. If the server gets the same request again, it has no side-effects and the response is the same. That way the client, if it times out waiting for the response, simply sends the request again and it will eventually (unless the connection was torn out never to be fixed again) get a response and the request will be completed.
If all else fails, you need to record the executed requests and eliminate the duplicates in the server. Because no network protocol can do that for you. It can eliminate many (as TCP does), but not all.
There is a specific section on that point on the HTTP RFC7230 6.6 Teardown (bold added):
(...)
If a server performs an immediate close of a TCP connection, there is
a significant risk that the client will not be able to read the last
HTTP response.
(...)
To avoid the TCP reset problem, servers typically close a connection
in stages. First, the server performs a half-close by closing only
the write side of the read/write connection. The server then
continues to read from the connection until it receives a
corresponding close by the client, or until the server is reasonably
certain that its own TCP stack has received the client's
acknowledgement of the packet(s) containing the server's last
response. Finally, the server fully closes the connection.
So yes, this response sent step is a quite complex stuff.
Check for example the Lingering close section on this Apache 2.4 document, or the complex FIN_WAIT/FIN_WAIT2 pages for Apache 2.0.
So, a good HTTP server should maintain the socket long enough to be reasonably certain that it's OK on the client side. But if you really need to acknowledge something in a web application, you should use a callback (image callback, ajax callback) asserting the response was fully loaded in the client browser (so another HTTP request). That means it's not atomic as you said, or at least not transactional like you could expect from a relational database. You need to add another request from the client, that maybe you'll never get (because the server had crash before receiving the acknowledgement), etc.
I'm trying to determine if a client has closed a socket connection from netty. Is there a way to do this?
On a usual case where a client closes the socket via close() and the TCP closing handshake has been finished successfully, a channelInactive() (or channelClosed() in 3) event will be triggered.
However, on an unusual case such as where a client machine goes offline due to power outage or unplugged LAN cable, it can take a lot of time until you discover the connection was actually down. To detect this situation, you have to send some message to the client periodically and expect to receive its response within a certain amount of time. It's like a ping - you should define a periodic ping and pong message in your protocol which practically does nothing but checking the health of the connection.
Alternatively, you can enable SO_KEEPALIVE, but the keepalive interval of this option is usually OS-dependent and I would not recommend using it.
To help a user implement this sort of behavior relatively easily, Netty provides ReadTimeoutHandler. Configure your pipeline so that ReadTimeoutHandler raises an exception when there's no inbound traffic for a certain amount of time, and close the connection on the exception in your exceptionCaught() handler method. If you are the party who is supposed to send a periodic ping message, use a timer (or IdleStateHandler) to send it.
If you are writing a server, and netty is your client, then your server can detect a disconnect by calling select() or equivalent to detect when the socket is readable and then call recv(). If recv() returns 0 then the socket was closed gracefully by the client. If recv() returns -1 then check errno or equivalent for the actual error (with few exceptions, most errors should be treated as an ungraceful disconnect). The thing about unexpected disconnects is that they can take a long time for the OS to detect, so you would have to either enable TCP keep-alives, or require the client to send data to the server on a regular basis. If nothing is received from the client for a period of time then just assume the client is gone and close your end of the connection. If the client wants to, it can then reconnect.
If you read from a connection that has been closed by the peer you will get an end-of-stream indication of some kind, depending on the API. If you write to such a connection you will get an IOException: 'connection reset'. TCP doesn't provide any other way of detecting a closed connection.
TCP keep-alive (a) is off by default and (b) only operates every two hours by default when enabled. This probably isn't what you want. If you use it and you read or write after it has detected that the connection is broken, you will get the reset error above,
It depends on your protocol that you use ontop of netty. If you design it to support ping-like messages, you can simply send those messages. Besides that, netty is only a pretty thin wrapper around TCP.
Also see this SO post which describes isOpen() and related. This however does not solve the keep-alive problem.
From what I know, a blocking receive on a TCP socket does not always detect a connection error (due either to a network failure or to a remote-endpoint failure) by returning a -1 value or raising an IO exception: sometimes it could just hang indefinitely.
One way to manage this problem is to set a timeout for the blocking receive. In case an upper bound for the reception time is known, this bound could be set as timeout and the connection could be considered lost simply when the timeout expires; when such an upper bound is not known a priori, for example in a pub-sub system where a connection stays open to receive publications, the timeout to be set would be somewhat arbitrary but its expiration could trigger a ping/pong request to verify that the connection (and the endpoint too) is still up.
I wonder whether the use of asynchronous receive also manages the problem of detecting a connection failure. In boost::asio I would call socket::asynch_read_some() registering an handler to be asynchronously called, while in java.nio I would configure the channel as non-blocking and register it to a selector with an OP_READ interest flag. I imagine that a correct connection-failure detection would mean that, in the first case the handler would be called with a non-0 error_code, while in the second case the selector would select the faulty channel but a subsequent read() on the channel would either return -1 or throw an IOException.
Is this behaviour guaranteed with asynchronous receive, or could there be scenarios where after a connection failure, for example, in boost::asio the handler will never be called or in java.nio the selector will never select the channel?
Thank you very much.
I believe you're referring to the TCP half-open connection problem (the RFC 793 meaning of the term). Under this scenario, the receiving OS will never receive indication of the lost connection, so it will never notify the app. Whether the app is readding synchronously or asynchronously doesn't enter into it.
The problem occurs when the transmitting side of the connection somehow is no longer aware of the network connection. This can happen, for example, when
the transmitting OS abruptly terminates/restarts (power outage, OS failure/BSOD, etc.).
the transmitting side closes its side while there is a network disruption between the two sides and cleans up its side: e.g transmitting OS reboots cleanly during disruption, transmitting Windows OS is unplugged from the network
When this happens, the receiving side may be waiting for data or a FIN that will never come. Unless the receiving side sends a message, there's no way for it to realize the transmitting side is no longer aware of the receiving side.
Your solution (a timeout) is one way to address the issue, but it should include sending a message to the transmitting side. Again, it doesn't matter the read is synchronous or asynchronous, just that it doesn't read and wait indefinitely for data or a FIN. Another solution is using a TCP KEEPALIVE feature that is supported by some TCP stacks. But the hard part of any generalized solution is usually determining a proper timeout, since the timeout is highly dependent on characteristics of the specific application.
Because of how TCP works, you will typically have to send data in order to notice a hard connection failure, to find out that no ACK packet will ever be returned. Some protocols attempt to identify conditions like this by periodically using a keep-alive or ping packet: if one side does not receive such a packet in X time (and perhaps after trying and failing one itself), it can consider the connection dead.
To answer your question, blocking and non-blocking receive should perform identically except for the act of blocking itself, so both will suffer from this same issue. In order to make sure that you can detect a silent failure from the remote host, you'll have to use a form of keep-alive like I described.