please see the following pic:
the client initiate a half-close request and get acknowledged,if i dont misunderstand what half-close means,the client should not be able to send any data afterwards, then how can it send back an ACK later.
It's not the client data that is being sent, it the acknowledgement for the server data received after client does shutdown( fd, SHUT_WR ), which means client will not send anymore, but can still receive. The ACK itself is part of the transport protocol, not the application.
Related
For a TCP connection, operating in Non-blocking mode on both client and server-side.
Assume that server has sent 10bytes successfully in one shot, Can the client receive the data in (2bytes,2bytes, EAGAIN, 8bytes) chunks? or will the client will always receive data in (2bytes,2bytes,8bytes)(without EAGAIN). Can there be an EAGAIN in between in any case?
This question asks what to do about loosing XMPP messages on mobile devices when they don't have a stable connection, but I don't really see why the packages get lost in the first place.
I remember having read that the stream between the server and the client stays open when the connection is suddenly lost and will only be destroyed once the connection times out. This means that the server sends arriving messages over the stream, even though the disconnected client can't receive those messages anymore.
I was happy with that explanation for some time, but started wondering why core XMPP would be lacking such an important feature. Eventually I noticed that ensuring correct transmission in the XMPP protocol would be redundant, as the underlying TCP should already ensure the proper transmission of the message, but as the various problems that arise from the lost message it seems that this isn't true.
Why isn't TCP enough to ensure that the message is either correctly sent or fails properly so the server knows it has to send the message later?
Why isn't TCP enough to ensure a proper transmission (or proper error handling, so the server knows the message has to be sent again) in this scenario?
Application gives the data that needs to be sent across to its TCP. TCP segments the data as needed and sends them out on established connection. Application passes over the burden of ensuring the packet reaches the other end to TCP. ( This does not mean,application should not have re-transmissions. Application level protocol can define re-send of messages if right response didn't come)
TCP has the mechanism of the Re-transmissions. Every packet sent to peer needs to be acknowledged. Until the acknowledgements come in TCP shall have the packets in its sendQ. Once the acknowledgement for the packets sent is received, they are removed.
If there is packet loss, acknowledgements don't arrive. TCP does the re-transmissions. Eventually gives up.Notifies application which needs to take action. Packet loss can happen beyond TCPs control. Thus TCP provides best-effort reliable service.
(Original title: "Weird TCP connection close behavior")
I am troubleshooting TCP connection process using Wireshark. Client opens connection to server (I tried two different servers), and starts receiving long stream of data. At some point in time client wants to stop and sends server [FIN, ACK] packet, but server does not stop sending data, it continues till its own full stream end, and then sends its own completion packet [FIN, PSH, ACK]. I figured it out keeping reading data from the client's socket after client sent FIN packet. Also, after client sent this FIN packet, its state is FIN_WAIT, thus waiting for FIN response from server...
Why servers do not stop sending data and respond to FIN packet with acknowledgment with FIN set?
I would expect, after client sends FIN packet, server will still send several packets which were on the fly before it received FIN, but not the whole pack of long data stream!
Edit: reading this I think that web server is stuck in stage "CLOSE-WAIT: The server waits for the application process on its end to signal that it is ready to close" (third row), and its data sending process "is done" when it flushed all contents to the socket at its end, and this process can not be terminated. Weird.
Edit1: it appears my question is a little different one. I need to totally terminate connection at client's side, so that server stops sending data, and it (server) would not go crazy about forceful termination from client's side, and aborted its data sending thread at its side being ready for next connection.
Edit2: environment is HTTP servers.
The client has only shutdown the connection for output, not closed it. So the server is fully entitled to keep sending.
If the client had closed the connection, it would issue an RST in response to any further data received, which would stop the server from sending any more, modulo buffering.
Why servers do not stop sending data and respond to FIN packet with acknowledgment with FIN set?
Why should they? The client has said it won't send another request, but that doesn't mean it isn't interested in the response to any requests it has already sent.
Most protocols, such as HTTP, specify that the server should complete the response to the current request and only then close the connection. This is not an abnormal abort, it's just a promise not to send anything else.
Sending a FIN is an indication that the end won't send any data. But can it send TCP keepalive?
If it can then it contradicts the statement of "sending stuff after FIN" even though it is keepalive but not data.
If it doesn't send keepalive, it won't detect if the other end is gone.
For ex:
Client send FIN and got ACK back. Server then sent a reset which was lost.
Only way the client can detect that server has gone away is by sending keepalive which will be responded with reset and then the client closes.
Does this happen?
According to RFC-1122:
Keep-alive packets MUST only be sent when no data or acknowledgement packets have been received for the connection within an interval.
Sending FIN is only an indication that no more data will be sent, not that no more data can be received. If the application after sending FIN is still expecting data, the RFC indicates it can send a keep-alive packet to make sure the other end is still there.
We are facing random RST packet problem in our environments, which causes some unexpected behaviors, following image is snapshot of the tcp data generated by wireshark, which shows the problem:
Client (117.136.2.181) successfully sets up the connection with the server (192.168.40.16)
Client sends some data to the server, as well the KEEP_ALIVE signal.
Server receives the data, process it and sends the result back to client.
Server close the socket.
Server does not receive the ACK signal from client, so it re-transmits the result data as well as the FIN signal, this is automatically done by TCP protocol. However, server still does not receive the ACK signal from client.
Server sends a RST signal to client so connection is closed.
After some analysis, we think some network problem happens after step 3, so all the result data and FIN signal sent from server are not ack'd by client, but we are very confused about the RST signal sent from the server. Based on our understanding, a RST signal is sent if a half-closed socket receives some data, or if there is data in the receive queue when closes a socket. But both these seem not be the root cause of our case.
Can some one help to elaborate why this is happening?
RST usually happens when close is called on the socket without shutdown, or after a shutdown while the other party is still trying to send data (still has not replied with an FIN).
Some programming languages have a socket.close(timeout) for example .NET, that calls shutdown then close after timeout has passed.
So the client have up to timeout to finish sending and closing the connection with FIN, if it fails to do so, the connection will be forcibly closed by RST.
See https://stackoverflow.com/a/23483487/1438522 for a more thorough explanation about difference between close and shutdown.