Develop Reference

Networkstream small vs. big buffer size [duplicate]

If i send 1000 bytes in TCP, does it guarantee that the receiver will get the entire 1000 bytes "togther"? or perhaps he will first only get 500 bytes, and later he'll receive the other bytes?
EDIT: the question comes from the application's point of view. If the 1000 bytes are reassembles into a single buffer before they reach the application .. then i don't care if it was fragmented in the way..

See Transmission Control Protocol:
TCP provides reliable, ordered delivery of a stream of bytes from a program on one computer to another program on another computer.
A "stream" means that there is no message boundary from the receiver's point of view. You could get one 1000 byte message or one thousand 1 byte messages depending on what's underneath and how often you call read/select.
Edit: Let me clarify from the application's point of view. No, TCP will not guarantee that the single read would give you all of the 1000 bytes (or 1MB or 1GB) packet the sender may have sent. Thus, a protocol above the TCP usually contains fixed length header with the total content length in it. For example you could always send 1 byte that indicates the total length of the content in bytes, which would support up to 255 bytes.

As other answers indicated, TCP is a stream protocol -- every byte sent will be received (once and in the same order), but there are no intrinsic "message boundaries" -- whether all bytes are sent in a single .send call, or multiple ones, they might still be received in one or multiple .receive calls.
So, if you need "message boundaries", you need to impose them on top of the TCP stream, IOW, essentially, at application level. For example, if you know the bytes you're sending will never contain a \0, null-terminated strings work fine; various methods of "escaping" let you send strings of bytes which obey no such limitations. (There are existing protocols for this but none is really widespread or widely accepted).

Basically as far as TCP goes it only guarantees that the data sent from one end to the other end will be sent in the same order.
Now usually what you'll have to do is have an internal buffer that keeps looping until it has received your 1000 byte "packet".
Because the recv command as mentioned returns how much has actually been received.
So usually you'll have to then implement a protocol on top of TCP to make sure you send data at an appropriate speed. Because if you send() all the data in one run through it will overload the under lying networking stack, and which will cause complications.
So usually in the protocol there is a tiny acknowledgement packet sent back to confirm that the packet of 1000 bytes are sent.

You decide, in your message that how many bytes your message shall contain. For instance in your case its 1000. Following is up and running C# code to achieve the same. The method returns with 1000 bytes. The abort code is 0 bytes; you can tailor that according to your needs.
Usage:
strMsg = ReadData(thisTcpClient.Client, 1000, out bDisconnected);
Following is the method:
string ReadData(Socket sckClient, int nBytesToRead, out bool bShouldDisconnect)
{
bShouldDisconnect = false;
byte[] byteBuffer = new byte[nBytesToRead];
Array.Clear(byteBuffer, 0, byteBuffer.Length);
int nDataRead = 0;
int nStartIndex = 0;
while (nDataRead < nBytesToRead)
{
int nBytesRead = sckClient.Receive(byteBuffer, nStartIndex, nBytesToRead - nStartIndex, SocketFlags.None);
if (0 == nBytesRead)
{
bShouldDisconnect = true;
//0 bytes received; assuming disconnect signal
break;
}
nDataRead += nBytesRead;
nStartIndex += nBytesRead;
}
return Encoding.Default.GetString(byteBuffer, 0, nDataRead);
}
Let us know this didn't help you (0: Good luck.

Yes, there is a chance for receiving packets part by part. Hope this msdn article and following example (taken from the article in msdn for quick review) would be helpful to you if you are using windows sockets.
void CChatSocket::OnReceive(int nErrorCode)
{
CSocket::OnReceive(nErrorCode);
DWORD dwReceived;
if (IOCtl(FIONREAD, &dwReceived))
{
if (dwReceived >= dwExpected) // Process only if you have enough data
m_pDoc->ProcessPendingRead();
}
else
{
// Error handling here
}
}

TCP guarantees that they will recieve all 1000 bytes, but not necessarily in order (though, it will appear so to the recieving application) and not necessarily all at once (unless you craft the packet yourself and make it so.).
That said, for a packet as small as 1000 bytes, there is a good chance it'll send in one packet as long as you do it in one call to send, though for larger transmissions it may not.

The only thing that the TCP layer guarantees is that the receiver will receive:
all the bytes transmitted by the sender
in the same order
There are no guarantees at all about how the bytes might be split up into "packets". All the stuff you might read about MTU, packet fragmentation, maximum segment size, or whatever else is all below the layer of TCP sockets, and is irrelevant. TCP provides a stream service only.
With reference to your question, this means that the receiver may receive the first 500 bytes, then the next 500 bytes later. Or, the receiver might receive the data one byte at a time, if that's what it asks for. This is the reason that the recv() function takes a parameter that tells it how much data to return, instead of it telling you how big a packet is.

The transmission control protocol guarantees successful delivery of all packets by requiring acknowledgment of the successful delivery of each packet to the sender by the receiver. By this definition the receiver will always receive the payload in chunks when the size of the payload exceeds the MTU (maximum transmission unit).
For more information please read Transmission Control Protocol.

The IP packets may get fragmented during retransmission.
So the destination machine may receive multiple packets - which will be reassembled back by TCP/IP stack. Depending on the network API you are using - the data will be given to you either reassembled or in RAW packets.

It depends of the stablished MTU (Maximum transfer unit). If your stablished connection (once handshaked) refers to a MTU of 512 bytes you will need two or more TCP packets to send 1000 bytes.

TCP communication issue [duplicate]

If i send 1000 bytes in TCP, does it guarantee that the receiver will get the entire 1000 bytes "togther"? or perhaps he will first only get 500 bytes, and later he'll receive the other bytes?
EDIT: the question comes from the application's point of view. If the 1000 bytes are reassembles into a single buffer before they reach the application .. then i don't care if it was fragmented in the way..

See Transmission Control Protocol:
TCP provides reliable, ordered delivery of a stream of bytes from a program on one computer to another program on another computer.
A "stream" means that there is no message boundary from the receiver's point of view. You could get one 1000 byte message or one thousand 1 byte messages depending on what's underneath and how often you call read/select.
Edit: Let me clarify from the application's point of view. No, TCP will not guarantee that the single read would give you all of the 1000 bytes (or 1MB or 1GB) packet the sender may have sent. Thus, a protocol above the TCP usually contains fixed length header with the total content length in it. For example you could always send 1 byte that indicates the total length of the content in bytes, which would support up to 255 bytes.

As other answers indicated, TCP is a stream protocol -- every byte sent will be received (once and in the same order), but there are no intrinsic "message boundaries" -- whether all bytes are sent in a single .send call, or multiple ones, they might still be received in one or multiple .receive calls.
So, if you need "message boundaries", you need to impose them on top of the TCP stream, IOW, essentially, at application level. For example, if you know the bytes you're sending will never contain a \0, null-terminated strings work fine; various methods of "escaping" let you send strings of bytes which obey no such limitations. (There are existing protocols for this but none is really widespread or widely accepted).

Basically as far as TCP goes it only guarantees that the data sent from one end to the other end will be sent in the same order.
Now usually what you'll have to do is have an internal buffer that keeps looping until it has received your 1000 byte "packet".
Because the recv command as mentioned returns how much has actually been received.
So usually you'll have to then implement a protocol on top of TCP to make sure you send data at an appropriate speed. Because if you send() all the data in one run through it will overload the under lying networking stack, and which will cause complications.
So usually in the protocol there is a tiny acknowledgement packet sent back to confirm that the packet of 1000 bytes are sent.

You decide, in your message that how many bytes your message shall contain. For instance in your case its 1000. Following is up and running C# code to achieve the same. The method returns with 1000 bytes. The abort code is 0 bytes; you can tailor that according to your needs.
Usage:
strMsg = ReadData(thisTcpClient.Client, 1000, out bDisconnected);
Following is the method:
string ReadData(Socket sckClient, int nBytesToRead, out bool bShouldDisconnect)
{
bShouldDisconnect = false;
byte[] byteBuffer = new byte[nBytesToRead];
Array.Clear(byteBuffer, 0, byteBuffer.Length);
int nDataRead = 0;
int nStartIndex = 0;
while (nDataRead < nBytesToRead)
{
int nBytesRead = sckClient.Receive(byteBuffer, nStartIndex, nBytesToRead - nStartIndex, SocketFlags.None);
if (0 == nBytesRead)
{
bShouldDisconnect = true;
//0 bytes received; assuming disconnect signal
break;
}
nDataRead += nBytesRead;
nStartIndex += nBytesRead;
}
return Encoding.Default.GetString(byteBuffer, 0, nDataRead);
}
Let us know this didn't help you (0: Good luck.

Yes, there is a chance for receiving packets part by part. Hope this msdn article and following example (taken from the article in msdn for quick review) would be helpful to you if you are using windows sockets.
void CChatSocket::OnReceive(int nErrorCode)
{
CSocket::OnReceive(nErrorCode);
DWORD dwReceived;
if (IOCtl(FIONREAD, &dwReceived))
{
if (dwReceived >= dwExpected) // Process only if you have enough data
m_pDoc->ProcessPendingRead();
}
else
{
// Error handling here
}
}

TCP guarantees that they will recieve all 1000 bytes, but not necessarily in order (though, it will appear so to the recieving application) and not necessarily all at once (unless you craft the packet yourself and make it so.).
That said, for a packet as small as 1000 bytes, there is a good chance it'll send in one packet as long as you do it in one call to send, though for larger transmissions it may not.

The only thing that the TCP layer guarantees is that the receiver will receive:
all the bytes transmitted by the sender
in the same order
There are no guarantees at all about how the bytes might be split up into "packets". All the stuff you might read about MTU, packet fragmentation, maximum segment size, or whatever else is all below the layer of TCP sockets, and is irrelevant. TCP provides a stream service only.
With reference to your question, this means that the receiver may receive the first 500 bytes, then the next 500 bytes later. Or, the receiver might receive the data one byte at a time, if that's what it asks for. This is the reason that the recv() function takes a parameter that tells it how much data to return, instead of it telling you how big a packet is.

The transmission control protocol guarantees successful delivery of all packets by requiring acknowledgment of the successful delivery of each packet to the sender by the receiver. By this definition the receiver will always receive the payload in chunks when the size of the payload exceeds the MTU (maximum transmission unit).
For more information please read Transmission Control Protocol.

The IP packets may get fragmented during retransmission.
So the destination machine may receive multiple packets - which will be reassembled back by TCP/IP stack. Depending on the network API you are using - the data will be given to you either reassembled or in RAW packets.

It depends of the stablished MTU (Maximum transfer unit). If your stablished connection (once handshaked) refers to a MTU of 512 bytes you will need two or more TCP packets to send 1000 bytes.

What's the best way to send commands through TCP Sockets?

What I'm currently doing with my Server and Client is sending commands between them using simple strings to bytes. What it comes down to is basically this (to send a message to the server as an example):
byte[] outStream = System.Text.Encoding.UTF8.GetBytes("$msg:Test Message");
serverStream.Write(outStream, 0, outStream.Length);
And the recieving end encodes back to a string. It recognizes the command by doing this:
recievedstring.Split(':')[0]
and assuming that recievedstring.Split(':')[1] is the argument. If a user entered a colon in their message then it would cut off there. I feel like this is a hacky way to send data between both endpoints. Is there a more standard way to do this? Sorry if I didn't provide enough information, I'm new to this!

You dont necessarily need to deal all data communicated as string, you can communicate data as bytes and later convert bytes to any datatype(as sent by sender).
A better way is to define a protocol (e.g. a packet format) between server and client for each msg. For example, you can define a packet such that first 4 bytes contain length of the message followed by the message of specified length. Your packet format will be [length:data]
On sending side you will need to write length of message first on stream, and then write the actual data, where as on receiving side you will first receive an int (length of data) and then receive that much byte.
Further more, instead of just $msg (as in your case) if there can be multiple types of packets that can be communicated between end points e.g. $command, $notification etc you can also define a field of message type in your packet. Your packet format will become [length:type:data]

NetworkStream.Length substitute

I am using a networkstream to pass short strings around the network.
Now, on the receiving side I have encountered an issue:
Normally I would do the reading like this
see if data is available at all
get count of data available
read that many bytes into a buffer
convert buffer content to string.
In code that assumes all offered methods work as probably intended, that would look something like this:
NetworkStream stream = someTcpClient.GetStream();
while(!stream.DataAvailable)
;
byte[] bufferByte;
stream.Read(bufferByte, 0, stream.Lenght);
AsciiEncoding enc = new AsciiEncoding();
string result = enc.GetString(bufferByte);
However, MSDN says that NetworkStream.Length is not really implemented and will always throw an Exception when called.
Since the incoming data are of varying length I cannot hard-code the count of bytes to expect (which would also be a case of the magic-number antipattern).
Question:
If I cannot get an accurate count of the number of bytes available for reading, then how can I read from the stream properly, without risking all sorts of exceptions within NetworkStream.Read?
EDIT:
Although the provided answer leads to a better overall code I still want to share another option that I came across:
TCPClient.Available gives the bytes available to read. I knew there had to be a way to count the bytes in one's own inbox.

There's no guarantee that calls to Read on one side of the connection will match up 1-1 with calls to Write from the other side. If you're dealing with variable length messages, it's up to you to provide the receiving side with this information.
One common way to do this is to first work out the length of the message you're going to send and then send that length information first. On the receiving side, you then obtain the length first and then you know how big a buffer to allocate. You then call Read in a loop until you've read the correct number of bytes. Note that, in your original code, you're currently ignoring the return value from Read, which tells you how many bytes were actually read. In a single call and return, this could be as low as 1, even if you're asking for more than 1 byte.
Another common way is to decide on message "formats" - where e.g. message number 1 is always 32 bytes in length and has X structure, and message number 2 is 51 bytes in length and has Y structure. With this approach, rather than you sending the message length before sending the message, you send the format information instead - first you send "here comes a message of type 1" and then you send the message.
A further common way, if applicable, is to use some form of sentinels - if your messages will never contain, say, a byte with value 0xff then you scan the received bytes until you've received an 0xff byte, and then everything before that byte was the message you wanted to receive.
But, whatever you want to do, whether its one of the above approaches, or something else, it's up to you to have your sending and receiving sides work together to allow the receiver to discover each message.
I forgot to say but a further way to change everything around is - if you want to exchange messages, and don't want to do any of the above fiddling around, then switch to something that works at a higher level - e.g. WCF, or HTTP, or something else, where those systems already take care of message framing and you can, then, just concentrate on what to do with your messages.

You could use StreamReader to read stream to the end
var streamReader = new StreamReader(someTcpClient.GetStream(), Encoding.ASCII);
string result = streamReader.ReadToEnd();

Data not received correctly by TcpClient

I have a client-server program.
I'm sending data like this:
private void Sender(string s,TcpClient sock)
{
try
{
byte[] buffer = Encoding.UTF8.GetBytes(s);
sock.Client.Send(buffer);
}catch{}
}
and on the client side receiving like this:
byte[] buffer = new byte[PacketSize];
int size = client.Client.Receive(buffer);
String request = Encoding.UTF8.GetString(buffer, 0, size);
The problem is that data is not fully received always, sometimes it's only part of what I have sent. PacketSize is 10240 which is more than the bytes I send. I have also set SendBufferSize and ReceiveBufferSize at both sides.
The worst part is that sometimes data is fully received!
What might be the problem?

The size value returned by TcpClient.Receive is not the same as the length of the buffered string you sent. This is because there is no guarantee that when calling Receive once you will get back all the data that you sent with Send call. This behavior is intrinsic to the way TCP works (it's a stream-, not a message-based data protocol).
You cannot solve the problem by using bigger buffers, as the buffers you provide can only limit the amount of data that Receive returns. Even if you provide a 1MB buffer and there is 1MB of data to read, Receive can legitimately return any number of bytes (even just 1).
What you need to do is make sure that you have buffered all the data before calling Encoding.GetString. To do that, you need to know how much data there is in the first place. So at the very least, you need to write the length of the string bytes when sending:
byte[] buffer = Encoding.UTF8.GetBytes(s);
byte[] length = BitConverter.GetBytes(buffer.Length);
sock.Client.Send(length);
sock.Client.Send(buffer);
When receiving, you will first read the length (which has a known fixed size: 4 bytes) and then start buffering the rest of the data in a temp buffer until you have length bytes (this might take any number of Receive calls, so you 'll need a while loop). Only then can you call Encoding.GetString and get your original string back.
Explanation of the behavior you observe:
Even though the network stack of the OS makes pretty much no guarantees, in practice it will usually give you the data one TCP packet brings with one Receive call. Since the MTU (maximum packet size) for TCP allows around 1500 bytes for payload, naive code will work fine as long as the strings are less than this size. More than that and it will get split into multiple packets, and one Receive will then return only part of the data.