Develop Reference

Data errors with my serial receive method

I'm taking data from a serial instrument for plotting on a chart. The data stream is 230 kbps, and the serial pipeline is less than 50% full, data arrives about 100 kbps and actually doesn't vary really and rate or quantity.
Having used just a serial terminal program, like Teraterm, on the same computer; I can capture data and prove that both the source of the data as well as the test reception method are fine and I see no errors to the captured data.
The Windows Forms application I'm developing loses data. I've reduced it from receiving, capturing (in parallel), parsing, and plotting, to just receiving and capturing. And have found that I still see lost data in the capture.
I'm not a long experienced Windows person, so therefore may not know of better ways to accomplish the same functions. Here are the actions I'm taking to perform receive actions:
I'm using a System.IO.Ports.SerialPort class.
I modify the .DataReceived event via:
+= new SerialDataReceivedEventHandler(comPort_DataReceive);
I then call the open() method.
Note: I may be doing something incorrect here, I never clear the .DataReceived event with a -= at any point, instead each time I open, the event is added yet again. Nevertheless, these problems occur even when I've only talked to the port once.
Here's my code for the data receive function. RxString is a string.
private void comPort_DataReceive(object sender, SerialDataReceivedEventArgs e)
{
RxString = comPort.ReadExisting();
this.Invoke(new EventHandler(ParseData));
}
private void ParseData(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
// Save to capture file, if capture is enabled
if ((WriteToFileEnabled == true) && (WriteToFileName != null))
{
writeFileHandle.Write(RxString);
}
return;
// Previously would parse and plot data
}
So, how would persons execute a receive in this situation to get this data without losing it?
Follow on questions are things like: How big is the buffer for serial receive, or do I need to worry about that if I have a reasonably responsive application? Flow control is irrelevant, the remote device is going to send data no matter what, so it would be up to my computer to take that data and process it or ignore it. But how would I know if I've lost data or experienced framing errors and stuff? (I ask that last one without having searched much on the SerialPort class structure, sorry.)

Lets assume that your device is sending messages that are 85 bytes in length. The DataReceive event handler may or may not fire once to receive those 85 bytes. Since it might fire more than once your code must account for that. The DataReceive event handler should read the bytes available and append them to a buffer that is processed later.
Also, only one of the events raised by the SerialPort class can execute at a time. In the example assume the handler has to fire three times to receive the 85 bytes. While processing the first part the other two can't execute. If while processing the first part one of the other events, PinChanged or ErrorReceived, are needed they can't be executed either.
My first two experiences with the SerialPort class were a 9600 bps terminal and a 1 Mbps bluetooth device. What worked for the slower did not work for the faster, but when I figured out how to get the faster to work the slower could use the same methodology.
My methodology:
Before opening the serial port I start two other background threads that run in a do loop. The first one(Receive) reads all available bytes from the serial port, adds them to a buffer, and signals the second thread on every read. The second one(Protocol) determines if a full message has arrived, does any byte to string conversion, updates the UI, etc. Depending on the application I may start a third thread that handles errors and pin changes. All of these threads are throttled by a Threading AutoResetEvent.
My DataReceive event handler has one line in it, a Set on the AutoResetEvent that is throttling Receive.
A VB example of this can be found here SerialPort Methodology. Since adopting this methodology I have not had any of the problems that seem to plague other SerialPort users and have used it successfully with speeds up to 2Mbps.

Sending data in order with SocketAsyncEventArgs

I originally had a race condition when sending data, the issue was that I was allowing multiple SocketAsyncEventArgs to be used to send data, but the first packet didn't send fully before the 2nd packet, this is because I have it so if the data doesn't fit in the buffer it loops until all the data is sent, and the first packet was larger than the second packet which is tiny, so the second packet was being sent and reached to the client before the first packet.
I have solved this by assigning 1 SocketAyncEventArgs to an open connection to be used for sending data and used a Semaphore to limit the access to it, and make the SocketAsyncEventArgs call back once it completed.
Now this works fine because all data is sent, calls back when its complete ready for the next send. The issue with this is, its causing blocking when I want to send data randomly to the open connection, and when there is a lot of data sending its going to block my threads.
I am looking for a work around to this, I thought of having a Queue which when data is requested to be sent, it simply adds the packet to the Queue and then 1 SocketAsyncEventArgs simply loops to send that data.
But how can I do this efficiently whilst still being scalable? I want to avoid blocking as much as I can whilst sending my packets in the order they are requested to be sent in.
Appreciate any help!

If the data needs to be kept in order, and you don't want to block, then you need to add a queue. The way I do this is by tracking, on my state object, whether we already have an active send async-loop in process for that connection. After enqueue (which obviously must be synchronized), just check what is in-progress:
public void PromptToSend(NetContext context)
{
if(Interlocked.CompareExchange(ref writerCount, 1, 0) == 0)
{ // then **we** are the writer
context.Handler.StartSending(this);
}
}
Here writerCount is the count of write-loops (which should be exactly 1 or 0) on the connection; if there aren't any, we start one.
My StartSending tries to read from that connection's queue; if it can do so, it does the usual SendAsync etc:
if (!connection.Socket.SendAsync(args)) SendCompleted(args);
(note that SendCompleted here is for the "sync" case; it would have got to SendCompleted via the event-model for the "async" case). SendCompleted repeats this "dequeue, try send async" step, obviously.
The only thing left is to make sure that when we try to dequeue, we note the lack of action if we find nothing more to do:
if (bufferedLength == 0)
{ // nothing to do; report this worker as inactive
Interlocked.Exchange(ref writerCount, 0);
return 0;
}
Make sense?

How do I know when an asynchronous socket read ends?

I have an asynchronous read method...
private void read(IAsyncResult ar) {
//Get the Server State Object
ServerState state = (ServerState)ar.AsyncState;
//read from the socket
int readCount = state.socket.EndReceive(ar);
//check if reading is done, move on if so, trigger another read if not
if (readCount > 0) {
//purge the buffer and start another read
state.purgeBuffer();
state.socket.BeginReceive(state.buffer, 0, ServerState.bufferSize, 0, new AsyncCallback(read), state);
}
else {
//all bytes have been read, dispatch the message
dispatch(state);
}
}
The problem that I am having is that read is only 0 if the connection is closed. How do I say, this is the end of that message and pass the data on to the dispatcher, while leaving the socket open to accept new messages.
Thank you!

You should not rely on what is in the TCP buffer. You must process the incoming bytes as a stream somewhere. You can't really know whether its complete. Only one layer above can know when the message completed.
Example:
If you read HTTP responses the HTTP header will contain the byte count which is in the HTTP body. So you know how much to read.
You only know how much to read if the data follows a certain protocol and you interprete it. Imagine you receive a file over the socket. The first thing you would receive is the file size. Without that you would never know how much to read.

You should make your messages fit a particular format so that you can distinguish when they start and when end. Even if it is a stream of data it should be sent in packets.
One option is to send length of message first and then you know how much data to expect. But problem with that is if you loose sync you can never recover and you will never know what is message length and what is its content. It is good to use some special marking sequence to know when message begins. It is is not 100% error proof (sequence might appear in data) but certainly helps and allows to recover from sync loose. This is particularly important when reading from a binary stream like socket.
Even ancient RS232 serial protocol had its frame and stop bit to know when you got all the data.

how to do multiple stream.writes and reads on a single socket

My application connects to a device and sends multiple commands across a single socket connection. It then reads the response to these the basic structure is
command 1
stream.write
stream.read
command 2
stream.write
stream.read
.
.
.
i am wondering if there is a better way of doing this. I am not worried about blocking because this is running on a different thread than the rest of the program. the problem i am encountering is that sometimes the data for command 1 lands in the read for command 2. The other thing is the 1st byte that i receive is unique to the command.
any help would be appreciated

Assuming TCP - there is no way to ensure that each command is read as it was sent. At the destination end, each command can be fragmented or joined to other commands, so you need to manually decide where the boundaries are between them.
A common technique is to prefix the commands with their length, which you can read first, and know precisely how many bytes to read before the next one. At the destination end, you usually have some kind of queue which you push all received data onto, and you read off the queue one command at a time, only when there is one or more completely received commands.
I wouldn't recommend using blocking sockets under any circumstances really, even if you're using a separate thread. If you need to both send and receive on the same socket, you could encounter issues where you attempt to call Read when no data is waiting, and you will not be able to send any data until some is received.
Rather than using the blocking calls, use BeginRead,EndRead for asynchronous receiving, then you'll be able to send and receive in the same thread without having those worries.

Because you are in multithreading, use lock around sending commands, Like:
public void SendCommand(Command command)
{
lock (_commandLocker)
{
stream write
stream read
}
}
So only one command at time will send and receive data.
However, if you are receiving data from the device at any time "maybe it sends a notifications.." then consider do something like:
private Queue<Notification> _notificationsBuffer = new Queue<Notification>();//Or use BlockingCollection if your are using 4.0
At SendCommand
...
while (stream read)
{
if (this is a notification)
{
then add it to the notification buffer and continue read
continue;
}
else (this is our command)
{ ... read the response..}
}

Socket.SendAsync is not sending in-order on Mono/Linux

There is a a single-threaded server using .NET Socket with TCP protocol, and Socket.Pool(), Socket.Select(), Socket.Receive().
To send, I used:
public void SendPacket(int clientid, byte[] packet)
{
clients[clientid].socket.Send(packet);
}
But it was very slow when sending a lot of data to one client (halting the whole main thread), so I replaced it with this:
public void SendPacket(int clientid, byte[] packet)
{
using (SocketAsyncEventArgs e = new SocketAsyncEventArgs())
{
e.SetBuffer(packet, 0, packet.Length);
clients[clientid].socket.SendAsync(e);
}
}
It works fine on Windows with .NET (I don't know if it's perfect), but on Linux with Mono, packets are either dropped or reordered (I don't know). Reverting to slow version with Socket.Send() works on Linux. Source for whole server.
How to write non-blocking SendPacket() function that works on Linux?

I'm going to take a guess that it has to do with your using statement and your SendAsync call. Perhaps e falls out of scope and is being disposed while SendAsync is still processing the buffer. But then this might throw an exception. I am really just taking a guess. Try removing the using statement and see what happens.

I would say by not abusing the async method. YOu will find nowhere a documentation stating that this acutally is forced to maintain order. it queues iem for a scheuler which get distributed to threads, and by ignoring that the oder is not maintained per documentation you open yourself up to implementation details.
The best possibly is to:
Have a queue per socket.
When you write dasta into this queue, and there is no worker thread, start a work item (ThreadPool) to process the thread.
This way you have separate distinct queues that maintain order. Only one thread will ever process one queue / socket.

I got the same problem; Linux and windows react not in the same way with SendAsync. Sometimes linux truncate the data, but there is a workaround. First of all you need to use a queue. Each time you use SendAsync you have to check the callback.
If e.Offset + e.BytesTransferred < e.Buffer.Length, you just have to e.SetBuffer(e.Offset + e.BytesTransferred, e.Buffer.Length - e.BytesTransferred - e.Offset); and call SendAsync again.
I dont know why mono-linux believe it's completed before sending all the data and it's strange but i'm sure he does.

just like #mathieu, 10y later, I can confirm on Unity Mono+Linux complete callback is called without all bytes being sent in some cases. For me it was large packets only.