I want multiple IoT devices (Say 50) communicating to a server directly asynchronously via TCP. Assume all of them have a heartbeat pulse every 30 seconds and may drop off and reconnect at variable times.
Can anyone advice me the best way to make sure no data is dropped or blocked when multiple devices are communicating simultaneously?
TCP by itself ensures no data loss during the communication between a client and a server. It does that by the use of sequence numbers and ACK messages.
Technically, before the actual data transfer happens, a TCP connection is created between the client (which can be an IoT device, or any other device) and the server. Then, the data is split into multiple packets and sent over the network through that connection. All TCP-related mechanisms like flow-control, error-detection, congestion-detection, and many others, take place once the data starts to flow.
The wiki page for TCP is a pretty good start if you want to learn more about how it works.
Apart from that, as long as your server has enough capacity to support the flow of requests coming from the devices, then everything should work (at least in theory).
I don't think you are asking the right question. There is no way to make sure that no data is dropped or blocked. Networks do not always work (that is why the word work is in network, to convince you otherwise ).
The right question is: how do I make my distributed system as available and reliable as possible? The answer involves viewing interruption and congestion as part of the normal operation, and build your software appropriately.
There is a timeless usenix/acm/? paper from the late 70s early 80s that invigorated the notion that end-to-end protocols are much more effective then over-featured middle to middle protocols; and most guarantees of middle to middle amount to best effort. If you rely upon those guarantees, you are bound to fail. Sorry, cannot find the reference right now, but it is widely cited.
Since packets travel over the wire have checksums on different layers, Ethernet and IPv4 have checksums for their headers, TCP's checksum even covers the entire segment.
I know it is not impossible that a corrupted packet, from the standpoint of the application layer, can slip in without being discarded by Ethernet/IP/TCP, because there are chances that their checksums are correct, only the probability is low.
I am designing a custom binary protocol for an IM application. My question is do I need to add a checksum to ensure the integrity of my application data? Is a checksum really needed in practice?
There's actual research on this subject. It's old, but very relevant to the question at hand.
The paper, from 2000, is called "When the CRC and TCP checksum disagree" by Jonathan Stone and Craig Partridge, which investigate packet and frame errors, and look how often the TCP checksum is wrong, but the Ethernet CRC is fine. You can find the PDF here. Here are the important bits.
From the abstract:
Traces of Internet packets from the past two years show that between 1
packet in 1,100 and 1 packet in 32,000 fails the TCP checksum, even on
links where link-level CRCs should catch all but 1 in 4 billion
errors.
From the conclusion (with some of my highlighting)
In practice, the checksum is being asked to detect an error every
few thousand packets. After eliminating those errors that the checksum
always catches, the data suggests that, on average, between one packet
in 10 billion and one packet in a few millions will have an error that
goes undetected. The exact range depends on the type of data
transferred and the path being traversed. While these odds seem large,
they do not encourage complacency. In every trace, one or two 'bad
apple' hosts or paths are responsible for a huge proportion of the
errors. For applications which stumble across one of the `bad-apple'
hosts, the expected time until a corrupted data is accepted could be
as low as a few minutes. When compared to undetected error rates for
local I/O (e.g., disk drives), these rates are disturbing. Our
conclusion is that vital applications should strongly consider
augmenting the TCP checksum with an application sum.
I don't know of any newer research into that question (enlighten me if you know otherwise!), so the Internet could have become more reliable since then, and the numbers in the paper might be irrelevant.
However, and this is important, 17 years have passed, and the amount of Internet traffic simply exploded since that paper was written. At 1Gbps, which is not an uncommon connection speed nowadays, you're sending about 81K full TCP segments, with 1460 bytes of data, per second (or a lot more if the packets are smaller). That's a million big packets every 12.5 seconds, a billion in about 3.5 hours (or again, a lot more if the packets are small).
So to answer your question - that depends.
For transferring large files or other data, I'd definitely add additional checks if the data itself isn't protected in any way. For messaging, which pushes very little data into the network, you'll probably be fine with TCP's checksum, with maybe some sanity checks on the input you're getting to make sure that it's in the correct format, and various parameters and fields make sense.
I would not bother with a checksum because of packets getting corrupted in the network.
However, since you are working on a protocol that would presumably be used on the open internet, you will need to prepare for rare cases of an unintended application sending udp packets or making tcp connections to your receiving/listening ports. Also there will be maybe less port scans and hackers / script kiddies knocking on your gates.
So you should make your protocol such that it is easy to discard this kind of traffic. Using a checksum in every transmission would imho be one sensible way of doing that.
I'm in a situation where, logically, UDP would be the perfect choice (i need to be able to broadcast to hundreds of clients). This is in a very small and controlled environment (the whole network is over a few square metters, all devices are local, the network is way oversized with gigabit ethernet and switches everywhere).
Can i simply "ignore" all of the added reliability that needs to be tossed on udp (checking messages arrived, resending them etc) as those mostly apply where the is expected packet loss (the internet) or is it really suggested to handle udp as "may not arrive" even in such conditions?
I'm not asking for theorycrafting, really wondering if anyone could tell me from experience if i'm actually likely to have udp packets missing in such an environment or is it's going to be a really rare event as obviously sending things and assuming that worked is much simpler than handling all possible errors.
This is a matter of stochastics. Even in small local networks, packet losses will occur. Maybe they have an absolute probability of 1e-10 in a normal usage scenario. Maybe more, maybe less.
So, now comes real-world experience: Network controllers and Operating systems do have a tough live, if used in high-throughput scenarios. Worse applies to switches. So, if you're near the capacity of your network infrastructure, or your computational power, losses become far more likely.
So, in the end it's just a question on how high up in the networking stack you want to deal with errors: If you don't want to risk your application failing in 1 in 1e6 cases, you will need to add some flow/data integrity control; which really isn't that hard. If you can live with the fact that the average program has to be restarted every once in a while, well, that's error correction on user level...
Generally, I'd encourage you to not take risks. CPU power is just too cheap, and bandwidth, too, in most cases. Try ZeroMQ, which has broadcast communication models, and will ensure data integrity (and resend stuff if necessary), is available for practically all relevant languages, and runs on all relevant OSes, and is (at least from my perspective) easier to use than raw UDP sockets.
Suppose, there is a network which gives a lot of Timeout errors when packets are transmitted over it. Now, timeouts can happen either because the network itself is inherently lossy (say, poor hardware) or it might be that the network is highly congested, due to which network devices are losing packets in between, leading to Timeouts. Now, what additional statistics about the traffic being transmitted (like Missing Packets errors etc.) are required that might help us to find out whether timeouts are happening due to poor hardware, or too much network load.
Please note that we have access only to one node in the network (from which we are transmitting packets) and as such, we cannot get to know the load being put by other nodes on the network. Similarly, we don't really have any information about the hardware being used in the network. Statistics is all that we have.
A network node only has hardware information about its local collision domain, which on a standard network will be the cable that links the host to the switch.
All the TCP stack will know about lost packets is that it is not receiving acknowledgements so it needs to resend, there is no mechanism for devices (E.g. switches & routers) between a source and destination to tell the source that there is a problem.
Without access to any other nodes the only way to ascertain if your problem is load based would be to run a test that sends consistent traffic over the network for a long period, if the packet retry count per second/minute/hour remains the same then it would suggest that there is a hardware issue, if the losses only occur during peak traffic periods then the issue could be load related. Of course there could be a situation where misconfigured hardware issues will only be apparent during high traffic periods, this takes things back to the main problem which is that you need access to network stats from beyond your single node.
In practice, nearly all loss on terrestrial network paths is due to either congestion or firewalls. Loss due to bit-errors is extremely rare. Even on wireless networks, forward error correction handles most bit/media/transmission errors. Congestion can be caused by a lot of different factors: any given network path will involve dozens of devices and if any one of them becomes overloaded for even a moment, packets will be dropped.
The only way to tell the difference between congestion induced packet loss and media errors is that media errors will occur independent of load. In other words, the loss rate will be the same whether you are sending a lot of data or only a little data.
To test that, you will need some control, or at least knowledge, of the load on the path. Since you don't have control and the only knowledge you have is from source-node observation, the best you can do is to take test samples (using ping is the easiest) around the clock and throughout the week, recording loss rates and latencies. These should give you an idea of when the path is relatively idle. If loss rates remain significant even when the path is (probably) idle, then there might be a media-loss issue. But again, that is extremely rare.
For background, I have written a few articles on the subject:
Loss, Latency, and Speed, discussing what statistics you can observe about a path and what they mean.
Common Network Performance Problems, discussing the most common components in a network path and how they affect performance (congestion).
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
The community reviewed whether to reopen this question 1 year ago and left it closed:
Original close reason(s) were not resolved
Improve this question
For general protocol message exchange, which can tolerate some packet loss. How much more efficient is UDP over TCP?
People say that the major thing TCP gives you is reliability. But that's not really true. The most important thing TCP gives you is congestion control: you can run 100 TCP connections across a DSL link all going at max speed, and all 100 connections will be productive, because they all "sense" the available bandwidth. Try that with 100 different UDP applications, all pushing packets as fast as they can go, and see how well things work out for you.
On a larger scale, this TCP behavior is what keeps the Internet from locking up into "congestion collapse".
Things that tend to push applications towards UDP:
Group delivery semantics: it's possible to do reliable delivery to a group of people much more efficiently than TCP's point-to-point acknowledgement.
Out-of-order delivery: in lots of applications, as long as you get all the data, you don't care what order it arrives in; you can reduce app-level latency by accepting an out-of-order block.
Unfriendliness: on a LAN party, you may not care if your web browser functions nicely as long as you're blitting updates to the network as fast as you possibly can.
But even if you care about performance, you probably don't want to go with UDP:
You're on the hook for reliability now, and a lot of the things you might do to implement reliability can end up being slower than what TCP already does.
Now you're network-unfriendly, which can cause problems in shared environments.
Most importantly, firewalls will block you.
You can potentially overcome some TCP performance and latency issues by "trunking" multiple TCP connections together; iSCSI does this to get around congestion control on local area networks, but you can also do it to create a low-latency "urgent" message channel (TCP's "URGENT" behavior is totally broken).
In some applications TCP is faster (better throughput) than UDP.
This is the case when doing lots of small writes relative to the MTU size. For example, I read an experiment in which a stream of 300 byte packets was being sent over Ethernet (1500 byte MTU) and TCP was 50% faster than UDP.
The reason is because TCP will try and buffer the data and fill a full network segment thus making more efficient use of the available bandwidth.
UDP on the other hand puts the packet on the wire immediately thus congesting the network with lots of small packets.
You probably shouldn't use UDP unless you have a very specific reason for doing so. Especially since you can give TCP the same sort of latency as UDP by disabling the Nagle algorithm (for example if you're transmitting real-time sensor data and you're not worried about congesting the network with lot's of small packets).
UDP is faster than TCP, and the simple reason is because its non-existent acknowledge packet (ACK) that permits a continuous packet stream, instead of TCP that acknowledges a set of packets, calculated by using the TCP window size and round-trip time (RTT).
For more information, I recommend the simple, but very comprehensible Skullbox explanation (TCP vs. UDP)
with loss tolerant
Do you mean "with loss tolerance" ?
Basically, UDP is not "loss tolerant". You can send 100 packets to someone, and they might only get 95 of those packets, and some might be in the wrong order.
For things like video streaming, and multiplayer gaming, where it is better to miss a packet than to delay all the other packets behind it, this is the obvious choice
For most other things though, a missing or 'rearranged' packet is critical. You'd have to write some extra code to run on top of UDP to retry if things got missed, and enforce correct order. This would add a small bit of overhead in certain places.
Thankfully, some very very smart people have done this, and they called it TCP.
Think of it this way: If a packet goes missing, would you rather just get the next packet as quickly as possible and continue (use UDP), or do you actually need that missing data (use TCP). The overhead won't matter unless you're in a really edge-case scenario.
When speaking of "what is faster" - there are at least two very different aspects: throughput and latency.
If speaking about throughput - TCP's flow control (as mentioned in other answers), is extremely important and doing anything comparable over UDP, while certainly possible, would be a Big Headache(tm). As a result - using UDP when you need throughput, rarely qualifies as a good idea (unless you want to get an unfair advantage over TCP).
However, if speaking about latencies - the whole thing is completely different. While in the absence of packet loss TCP and UDP behave extremely similar (any differences, if any, being marginal) - after the packet is lost, the whole pattern changes drastically.
After any packet loss, TCP will wait for retransmit for at least 200ms (1sec per paragraph 2.4 of RFC6298, but practical modern implementations tend to reduce it to 200ms). Moreover, with TCP, even those packets which did reach destination host - will not be delivered to your app until the missing packet is received (i.e., the whole communication is delayed by ~200ms) - BTW, this effect, known as Head-of-Line Blocking, is inherent to all reliable ordered streams, whether TCP or reliable+ordered UDP. To make things even worse - if the retransmitted packet is also lost, then we'll be speaking about delay of ~600ms (due to so-called exponential backoff, 1st retransmit is 200ms, and second one is 200*2=400ms). If our channel has 1% packet loss (which is not bad by today's standards), and we have a game with 20 updates per second - such 600ms delays will occur on average every 8 minutes. And as 600ms is more than enough to get you killed in a fast-paced game - well, it is pretty bad for gameplay. These effects are exactly why gamedevs often prefer UDP over TCP.
However, when using UDP to reduce latencies - it is important to realize that merely "using UDP" is not sufficient to get substantial latency improvement, it is all about HOW you're using UDP. In particular, while RUDP libraries usually avoid that "exponential backoff" and use shorter retransmit times - if they are used as a "reliable ordered" stream, they still have to suffer from Head-of-Line Blocking (so in case of a double packet loss, instead of that 600ms we'll get about 1.5*2*RTT - or for a pretty good 80ms RTT, it is a ~250ms delay, which is an improvement, but it is still possible to do better). On the other hand, if using techniques discussed in http://gafferongames.com/networked-physics/snapshot-compression/ and/or http://ithare.com/udp-from-mog-perspective/#low-latency-compression , it IS possible to eliminate Head-of-Line blocking entirely (so for a double-packet loss for a game with 20 updates/second, the delay will be 100ms regardless of RTT).
And as a side note - if you happen to have access only to TCP but no UDP (such as in browser, or if your client is behind one of 6-9% of ugly firewalls blocking UDP) - there seems to be a way to implement UDP-over-TCP without incurring too much latencies, see here: http://ithare.com/almost-zero-additional-latency-udp-over-tcp/ (make sure to read comments too(!)).
Which protocol performs better (in terms of throughput) - UDP or TCP - really depends on the network characteristics and the network traffic. Robert S. Barnes, for example, points out a scenario where TCP performs better (small-sized writes). Now, consider a scenario in which the network is congested and has both TCP and UDP traffic. Senders in the network that are using TCP, will sense the 'congestion' and cut down on their sending rates. However, UDP doesn't have any congestion avoidance or congestion control mechanisms, and senders using UDP would continue to pump in data at the same rate. Gradually, TCP senders would reduce their sending rates to bare minimum and if UDP senders have enough data to be sent over the network, they would hog up the majority of bandwidth available. So, in such a case, UDP senders will have greater throughput, as they get the bigger pie of the network bandwidth. In fact, this is an active research topic - How to improve TCP throughput in presence of UDP traffic. One way, that I know of, using which TCP applications can improve throughput is by opening multiple TCP connections. That way, even though, each TCP connection's throughput might be limited, the sum total of the throughput of all TCP connections may be greater than the throughput for an application using UDP.
Each TCP connection requires an initial handshake before data is transmitted. Also, the TCP header contains a lot of overhead intended for different signals and message delivery detection. For a message exchange, UDP will probably suffice if a small chance of failure is acceptable. If receipt must be verified, TCP is your best option.
I will just make things clear. TCP/UDP are two cars are that being driven on the road. suppose that traffic signs & obstacles are Errors TCP cares for traffic signs, respects everything around. Slow driving because something may happen to the car. While UDP just drives off, full speed no respect to street signs. Nothing, a mad driver. UDP doesn't have error recovery, If there's an obstacle, it will just collide with it then continue. While TCP makes sure that all packets are sent & received perfectly, No errors , so , the car just passes obstacles without colliding. I hope this is a good example for you to understand, Why UDP is preferred in gaming. Gaming needs speed. TCP is preffered in downloads, or downloaded files may be corrupted.
UDP is slightly quicker in my experience, but not by much. The choice shouldn't be made on performance but on the message content and compression techniques.
If it's a protocol with message exchange, I'd suggest that the very slight performance hit you take with TCP is more than worth it. You're given a connection between two end points that will give you everything you need. Don't try and manufacture your own reliable two-way protocol on top of UDP unless you're really, really confident in what you're undertaking.
There has been some work done to allow the programmer to have the benefits of both worlds.
SCTP
It is an independent transport layer protolol, but it can be used as a library providing additional layer over UDP. The basic unit of communication is a message (mapped to one or more UDP packets). There is congestion control built in. The protocol has knobs and twiddles to switch on
in order delivery of messages
automatic retransmission of lost messages, with user defined parameters
if any of this is needed for your particular application.
One issue with this is that the connection establishment is a complicated (and therefore slow process)
Other similar stuff
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliable_User_Datagram_Protocol
One more similar proprietary experimental thing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QUIC
This also tries to improve on the triple way handshake of TCP and change the congestion control to better deal with fast lines.
Update 2022: Quic and HTTP/3
QUIC (mentioned above) has been standardized through RFCs and even became the basis of HTTP/3 since the original answer was written. There are various libraries such as lucas-clemente/quic-go or microsoft/msquic or google/quiche or mozilla/neqo (web-browsers need to be implementing this).
These libraries expose to the programmer reliable TCP-like streams on top the UDP transport. RFC 9221 (An Unreliable Datagram Extension to QUIC) adds working with individual unreliable data packets.
Keep in mind that TCP usually keeps multiple messages on wire. If you want to implement this in UDP you'll have quite a lot of work if you want to do it reliably. Your solution is either going to be less reliable, less fast or an incredible amount of work. There are valid applications of UDP, but if you're asking this question yours probably is not.
If you need to quickly blast a message across the net between two IP's that haven't even talked yet, then a UDP is going to arrive at least 3 times faster, usually 5 times faster.
It is meaningless to talk about TCP or UDP without taking the network condition into account.
If the network between the two point have a very high quality, UDP is absolutely faster than TCP, but in some other case such as the GPRS network, TCP may been faster and more reliability than UDP.
The network setup is crucial for any measurements. It makes a huge difference, if you are communicating via sockets on your local machine or with the other end of the world.
Three things I want to add to the discussion:
You can find here a very good article about TCP vs. UDP in the
context of game development.
Additionally, iperf (jperf enhance iperf with a GUI) is a
very nice tool for answering your question yourself by measuring.
I implemented a benchmark in Python (see this SO question). In average of 10^6 iterations the difference for sending 8 bytes is about 1-2 microseconds for UDP.