I'm writing a program using Java non-blocking socket and TCP. I understand that TCP is a stream protocol but the underlayer IP protocol uses packets. When I call SocketChannel.read(ByteBuffer dst), will I always get the whole content of IP packets? or it may end at any position in the middle of a packet?
This matters because I'm trying to send individual messages through the channel, each messages are small enough to be sent within a single IP packet without being fragmented. It would be cool if I can always get a whole message by calling read() on the receiver side, otherwise I have to implement some method to re-assembly the messages.
Edit: assume that, on the sender side, messages are sent with a long interval(like 1 second), so they aren't going to group together in one IP packet. On the receiver side, the buffer used to call read(ByteBuffer dst) is big enough to hold any message.
TCP is a stream of bytes. Each read will receive between 1 and the maximum of the buffer size that you supplied and the number of bytes that are available to read at that time.
TCP knows nothing of your concept of messages. Each send by client can result in 0 or more reads being required at the other end. Zero or more because you might get a single read that returns more than one of your 'messages'.
You should ALWAYS write your read code such that it can deal with your message framing and either reassemble partial messages or split multiple ones.
You may find that if you don't bother with this complexity then your code will seem to 'work' most of the time, don't rely on that. As soon as you are running on a busy network or across the internet, or as soon as you increase the size of your messages you WILL be bitten by your broken code.
I talk about TCP message framing some more here: http://www.serverframework.com/asynchronousevents/2010/10/message-framing-a-length-prefixed-packet-echo-server.html and here: http://www.serverframework.com/asynchronousevents/2010/10/more-complex-message-framing.html though it's in terms of a C++ implementation so it may or may not be of interest to you.
The socket API makes no guarantee that send() and recv() calls correlate to datagrams for TCP sockets. On the sending side, things may get regrouped already, e.g. the system may defer sending one datagram to see whether the application has more data; on the receiving side, a read call may retrieve data from multiple datagrams, or a partial datagram if the size specified by the caller is requires breaking packet.
IOW, the TCP socket API assumes you have a stream of bytes, not a sequence of packets. You need make sure you keep calling read() until you have enough bytes for a request.
From the SocketChannel documentation:
A socket channel in non-blocking mode, for example, cannot read
any more bytes than are immediately available from the socket's input buffer;
So if your destination buffer is large enough, you are supposed to be able to consume the whole data in the socket's input buffer.
Related
I'm testing large buffers right now and I am setting it in WSABUF and calling WSASend() next.
Thing though, is that WSARecv() just handed it back that large buffer in one go.
Does that make sense?
Where is the limit of WSASend() and WSARecv() with with respect to large buffers?
It seems that batching is happening in the background and all of that is hidden behind the abstraction.
If that is the case, I would like that always happenning to my application.
The limit is the socket send and receive buffer size respectively.
WSASend() blocks while the socket send buffer is full and returns when everything has been transferred to the socket send buffer. Meanwhile, asynchronously, TCP is removing data from the socket send buffer, turning it into TCP segments in a way which you cannot control, and passing the segments to the IP layer, which in turn turns them into IP packets, again in a way which you cannot control.
WSARecv() blocks while there is no data in the socket receive buffer, and returns when all the data in the socket receive buffer has been transferred to the application, up to the limit supplied by the application. That could be as little as one bye, or the entire application buffer, or anything in between, depending entirely on the granularity of what is received.
All this refers to blocking mode. Non-blocking mode is similar except that there are error returns instead of blocks above.
I have been testing a program which has simple communication between two machines over a 1Gbps line. While running TCP communications over the line I occasionally receive write errors on the client side (due to a timeout) when the network is totally flooded (running at or close to 100% usage). This generally happens when I am running multiple instances of the same program going to different ports.
My question is, is it possible to get a write error but still receive the message on the server side. It appears that is what is happening, and I am not quite sure why. Could it be that the ACK coming back to the client is what is timing out?
Yes, that is possible. TCP does not guarantee you that data you sent successfully is received and that data that is sent unsuccessfully is not received. This problem is unsolvable. It is called the Generals Problem. There is always a way to loose messages/packets such that the sender comes to the wrong conclusion. TCP guarantees that the receiver receives the same stream of bytes that the sender sent, but possibly cut off at an arbitrary point.
This unreliability has performance reasons, too. TCP data is buffered on both hosts as well as on the network. Acknowledgement is delayed.
You have to live with this. If you make your scenario more concrete I can suggest some strategies of dealing with this.
send puts data into the TCP send buffer.
If the send buffer has no enough space, send will block util the data is completely or partly copied into the send buffer, or the designed timeout arrives.
Read timeout and write timeout is OK. You should check and process them. The way is restarting read/write operation after timeout. You also pay attention to other read/write error except timeout.
In most descriptions of the TCP PUSH function, it is mentioned that the PUSH feature not only requires the sender to send the data immediately (without waiting for its buffer to fill), but also requires that the data be pushed to receiving application on the receiver side, without being buffered.
What I dont understand is why would TCP buffer data on receiving side at all? After all, TCP segments travel in IP datagrams, which are processed in their entirety (ie IP layer delivers only an entire segment to TCP layer after doing any necessary reassembly of fragments of the IP datagram which carried any given segment). Then, why would the receiving TCP layer wait to deliver this data to its application? One case could be if the application were not reading the data at that point in time. But then, if that is the case, then forcibly pushing the data to the application is anyway not possible. Thus, my question is, why does PUSH feature need to dictate anything about receiver side behavior? Given that an application is reading data at the time a segment arrives, that segment should anyway be delivered to the application straightaway.
Can anyone please help resolve my doubt?
TCP must buffer received data because it doesn't know when the application is going to actually read the data and it has told the sender that it is willing to receive (the available "window"). All this data gets stored in the "receive window" until such time as it gets read out by the application.
Once the application reads the data, it drops the data from the receive window and increases the size it reports back to the sender with the next ACK. If this window did not exist, then the sender would have to hold off sending until the receiver told it to go ahead which it could not do until the application issued a read. That would add a full round-trip-delay worth of latency to every read call, if not more.
Most modern implementations also make use of this buffer to keep out-of-order packets received so that the sender can retransmit only the lost ones rather than everything after it as well.
The PSH bit is not generally used acted upon. Yes, implementations send it but it typically doesn't change the behavior of the receiving end.
Note that, although the other comments are correct (the PSH bit doesn't impact application behaviour much at all in most implementations), it's still used by TCP to determine ACK behaviour. Specifically, when the PSH bit is set, the receiving TCP will ACK immediately instead of using delayed ACKs. Minor detail ;)
I'm trying to make a simple server/application in Erlang.
My server initialize a socket with gen_tcp:listen(Port, [list, {active, false}, {keepalive, true}, {nodelay, true}]) and the clients connect with gen_tcp:connect(Server, Port, [list, {active, true}, {keepalive, true}, {nodelay, true}]).
Messages received from the server are tested by guards such as {tcp, _, [115, 58 | Data]}.
Problem is, packets sometimes get concatenated when sent or received and thus cause unexpected behaviors as the guards consider the next packet as part of the variable.
Is there a way to make sure every packet is sent as a single message to the receiving process?
Plain TCP is a streaming protocol with no concept of packet boundaries (like Alnitak said).
Usually, you send messages in either UDP (which has limited per-packet size and can be received out of order) or TCP using a framed protocol.
Framed meaning you prefix each message with a size header (usualy 4 bytes) that indicates how long the message is.
In erlang, you can add {packet,4} to your socket options to get framed packet behavior on top of TCP.
assuming both sides (client/server) use {packet,4} then you will only get whole messages.
note: you won't see the size header, erlang will remove it from the message you see. So your example match at the top should still work just fine
You're probably seeing the effects of Nagle's algorithm, which is designed to increase throughput by coalescing small packets into a single larger packet.
You need the Erlang equivalent of enabling the TCP_NODELAY socket option on the sending socket.
EDIT ah, I see you already set that. Hmm. TCP doesn't actually expose packet boundaries to the application layer - by definition it's a stream protocol.
If packet boundaries are important you should consider using UDP instead, or make sure that each packet you send is delimited in some manner. For example, in the TCP version of DNS each message is prefixed by a 2 byte length header, which tells the other end how much data to expect in the next chunk.
You need to implement a delimiter for your packets.
One solution is to use a special character ; or something similar.
The other solution is to send the size of the packet first.
PacketSizeInBytes:Body
Then read the provided amount of bytes from your message. When you're at the end you got your whole packet.
Nobody mentions that TCP may also split your message into multiple pieces (split your packet into two messages).
So the second solution is the best of all. But a little hard. While the first one is still good but limits your ability to send packets with special characters. But the easiest to implement. Ofc theres a workaround for all of this. I hope it helps.
I am trying to get a handle on what happens when a server publishes (over tcp, udp, etc.) faster than a client can consume the data.
Within a program I understand that if a queue sits between the producer and the consumer, it will start to get larger. If there is no queue, then the producer simply won't be able to produce anything new, until the consumer can consume (I know there may be many more variations).
I am not clear on what happens when data leaves the server (which may be a different process, machine or data center) and is sent to the client. If the client simply can't respond to the incoming data fast enough, assuming the server and the consumer are very loosely coupled, what happens to the in-flight data?
Where can I read to get details on this topic? Do I just have to read the low level details of TCP/UDP?
Thanks
With TCP there's a TCP Window which is used for flow control. TCP only allows a certain amount of data to remain unacknowledged at a time. If a server is producing data faster than a client is consuming data then the amount of data that is unacknowledged will increase until the TCP window is 'full' at this point the sending TCP stack will wait and will not send any more data until the client acknowledges some of the data that is pending.
With UDP there's no such flow control system; it's unreliable after all. The UDP stacks on both client and server are allowed to drop datagrams if they feel like it, as are all routers between them. If you send more datagrams than the link can deliver to the client or if the link delivers more datagrams than your client code can receive then some of them will get thrown away. The server and client code will likely never know unless you have built some form of reliable protocol over basic UDP. Though actually you may find that datagrams are NOT thrown away by the network stack and that the NIC drivers simply chew up all available non-paged pool and eventually crash the system (see this blog posting for more details).
Back with TCP, how your server code deals with the TCP Window becoming full depends on whether you are using blocking I/O, non-blocking I/O or async I/O.
If you are using blocking I/O then your send calls will block and your server will slow down; effectively your server is now in lock step with your client. It can't send more data until the client has received the pending data.
If the server is using non blocking I/O then you'll likely get an error return that tells you that the call would have blocked; you can do other things but your server will need to resend the data at a later date...
If you're using async I/O then things may be more complex. With async I/O using I/O Completion Ports on Windows, for example, you wont notice anything different at all. Your overlapped sends will still be accepted just fine but you might notice that they are taking longer to complete. The overlapped sends are being queued on your server machine and are using memory for your overlapped buffers and probably using up 'non-paged pool' as well. If you keep issuing overlapped sends then you run the risk of exhausting non-paged pool memory or using a potentially unbounded amount of memory as I/O buffers. Therefore with async I/O and servers that COULD generate data faster than their clients can consume it you should write your own flow control code that you drive using the completions from your writes. I have written about this problem on my blog here and here and my server framework provides code which deals with it automatically for you.
As far as the data 'in flight' is concerned the TCP stacks in both peers will ensure that the data arrives as expected (i.e. in order and with nothing missing), they'll do this by resending data as and when required.
TCP has a feature called flow control.
As part of the TCP protocol, the client tells the server how much more data can be sent without filling up the buffer. If the buffer fills up, the client tells the server that it can't send more data yet. Once the buffer is emptied out a bit, the client tells the server it can start sending data again. (This also applies to when the client is sending data to the server).
UDP on the other hand is completely different. UDP itself does not do anything like this and will start dropping data if it is coming in faster then the process can handle. It would be up to the application to add logic to the application protocol if it can't lose data (i.e. if it requires a 'reliable' data stream).
If you really want to understand TCP, you pretty much need to read an implementation in conjunction with the RFC; real TCP implementations are not exactly as specified. For example, Linux has a 'memory pressure' concept which protects against running out of the kernel's (rather small) pool of DMA memory, and also prevents one socket running any others out of buffer space.
The server can't be faster than the client for a long time. After it has been faster than the client for a while, the system where it is hosted will block it when it writes on the socket (writes can block on a full buffer just as reads can block on an empty buffer).
With TCP, this cannot happen.
In case of UDP, packets will be lost.
The TCP Wikipedia article shows the TCP header format which is where the window size and acknowledgment sequence number are kept. The rest of the fields and the description there should give a good overview of how transmission throttling works. RFC 793 specifies the basic operations; pages 41 and 42 details the flow control.