I am trying to control the maximum total duration of a single connection in HttpListener. I am aware of the TimeoutManager property and the 5 or so different timeout values that it contains but it is unclear whether or not setting each of those values will add up to the total places where delay may occur in a connection.
I am looking for something more along the lines of: "If we have a connection that lasts more than x s from the moment of opening the connection until now, abort it without sending anything else or waiting for anything else."
EDIT
To clarify, the scenario that I was experimenting with involves the server trying to send the response and the client not receiving. This causes HttpListenerResponse.OutputStream.Write() to hang indefinitely. I was trying to find a method that I can call from another thread to hard-abort the connection. I tried using OutputStream.Close() and got Cannot Close Stream until all bytes are written. I also tried HttpListenerResponse.Abort() which produced no visible effect.
None of those properties will do what you want. HttpListener is intended to control the request flow, incomming and outgoing data, so it doesn't handle the time between when the response has been fully received and when you send a response, it's your responsability to take care of it.
You should create your own mechanism to abort the request if the total time is higer than the desired one, just a timer can be enough, when a new connection is created enqueue a timer with the total timeout as expiring time, if the request ends before the timer expires cancel the timer, else the timer aborts the request.
I'm trying to implement a client-server socket system based on this MSDN article and I have it working. If I do this it works fine when the server is returning a string immediately.
client.send();
client.receive();
The problem is if my send method requests something that takes the server a few minutes to process, such as creating a PDF version of a file, the receive call executes straight after and receives nothing (because the server hasn't sent anything as it's still processing the PDF).
How can I make the client wait for a certain period of time before executing the receive method so that it's called once the server has finished processing and has sent the file?
This seems to be the difference between a blocking and non-blocking receive call. A blocking receive call would wait until it actually had something to receive or it would timeout. A non-blocking receive call would return right away whether data is present or not. I don't know what call this is but I know C# has both types of calls.
The link you gave was to a asynchronous socket example which is generally different than what you are trying to do. What you are trying to do is more similar to a synchronous style.
Asynchronous in terms of sockets usually means you would register a function to be called when data was received. Synchronous means to poll (explicitly ask for data) in either a blocking or non-blocking manner.
EDIT:
You would send your data and set a class variable saying you have sent something and are expecting to receive something. Then wait for that variable to be cleared saying you've received something.
sent = 1
client.send()
while(sent);
Then in your receive callback when you actually get something you would set that variable.
/* receive data and process */
sent = 0;
Use async and wait. The function will get called after the call returns.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/vstudio/hh156513.aspx
I have a server that has several clients C1...Cn to each of which there is a TCP connection established. There are less than 10,000 clients.
The message protocol is request/response based, where the server sends a request to a client and then the client sends a response.
The server has several threads, T1...Tm, and each of these may send requests to any of the clients. I want to make sure that only one of these threads can send a request to a specific client at any one time, while the other threads wanting to send a request to the same client will have to wait.
I do not want to block threads from sending requests to different clients at the same time.
E.g. If T1 is sending a request to C3, another thread T2 should not be able to send anything to C3 until T1 has received its response.
I was thinking of using a simple lock statement on the socket:
lock (c3Socket)
{
// Send request to C3
// Get response from C3
}
I am using asynchronous sockets, so I may have to use Monitor instead:
Monitor.Enter(c3Socket); // Before calling .BeginReceive()
And
Monitor.Exit(c3Socket); // In .EndReceive
I am worried about stuff going wrong and not letting go of the monitor and therefore blocking all access to a client. I'm thinking that my heartbeat thread could use Monitor.TryEnter() with a timeout and throw out sockets that it cannot get the monitor for.
Would it make sense for me to make the Begin and End calls synchronous in order to be able to use the lock() statement? I know that I would be sacrificing concurrency for simplicity in this case, but it may be worth it.
Am I overlooking anything here? Any input appreciated.
My answer here would be a state machine per socket. The states would be free and busy:
If socket is free, the sender thread would mark it busy and start sending to client and waiting for response.
You might want to setup a timeout on that wait just in case a client gets stuck somehow.
If the state is busy - the thread sleeps, waiting for signal.
When that client-related timeout expires - close the socket, the client is dead.
When a response is successfully received/parsed, mark the socket free again and signal/wakeup the waiting threads.
Only lock around socket state inquiry and manipulation, not the actual network IO. That means a lock per socket, plus some sort of wait primitive like a conditional variables (sorry, don't remember what's really available in .NET)
Hope this helps.
You certainly can't use the locking approach that you've described. Since your system is primarily asynchronous, you can't know what thread operations will be running on. This means that you may call Exit on the wrong thread (and have a SynchronizationLockException thrown), or some other thread may call Enter and succeed even though that client is "in use", just because it happened to get the same thread that Enter was originally called on.
I'd agree with Nikolai that you need to hold some additional state alongside each socket to determine whether it is currently in use or not. You woud of course need locking to update this shared state.
My asking is quite simple and is about asynchronous sockets, working with TCP protocol.
When I send some data with the "BeginSend" method, when will the callback be called?
Will it be called when the data is just sent out to the network, or when we are ensured that the data as reached its destination (like it should be regarding to TCP specification) ?
Thanks for your answers.
KiTe.
ps : I'm sorry if my english is a bit bad ^^.
From MSDN:
"When your application calls BeginSend, the system will use a separate thread to execute the specified callback method, and will block on EndSend until the Socket sends the number of bytes requested or throws an exception."
"The successful completion of a send does not indicate that the data was successfully delivered. If no buffer space is available within the transport system to hold the data to be transmitted, send will block unless the socket has been placed in nonblocking mode."
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/38dxf7kt.aspx
When the callback is called you can be sure that the data has been cleared from the output buffer (the asynchronous operation uses a separate thread to ensure that your calling thread is not blocked in case there is no room in the transmit buffer and it has to wait to send the date) and that it will reach it's destination - but not that it has reached it yet.
Because of the TCP protocol's nature however, you can be sure (well, I guess almost sure) that it will get to the destination, eventually.
However, for timing purposes you should not consider the time of the callback as being the same as the time the data reaches the other party.
Despite the documentation, NetworkStream.Write does not appear to wait until the data has been sent. Instead, it waits until the data has been copied to a buffer and then returns. That buffer is transmitted in the background.
This is the code I have at the moment. Whether I use ns.Write or ns.BeginWrite doesn't matter - both return immediately. The EndWrite also returns immediately (which makes sense since it is writing to the send buffer, not writing to the network).
bool done;
void SendData(TcpClient tcp, byte[] data)
{
NetworkStream ns = tcp.GetStream();
done = false;
ns.BeginWrite(bytWriteBuffer, 0, data.Length, myWriteCallBack, ns);
while (done == false) Thread.Sleep(10);
}
public void myWriteCallBack(IAsyncResult ar)
{
NetworkStream ns = (NetworkStream)ar.AsyncState;
ns.EndWrite(ar);
done = true;
}
How can I tell when the data has actually been sent to the client?
I want to wait for 10 seconds(for example) for a response from the server after sending my data otherwise I'll assume something was wrong. If it takes 15 seconds to send my data, then it will always timeout since I can only start counting from when NetworkStream.Write returns - which is before the data has been sent. I want to start counting 10 seconds from when the data has left my network card.
The amount of data and the time to send it could vary - it could take 1 second to send it, it could take 10 seconds to send it, it could take a minute to send it. The server does send an response when it has received the data (it's a smtp server), but I don't want to wait forever if my data was malformed and the response will never come, which is why I need to know if I'm waiting for the data to be sent, or if I'm waiting for the server to respond.
I might want to show the status to the user - I'd like to show "sending data to server", and "waiting for response from server" - how could I do that?
I'm not a C# programmer, but the way you've asked this question is slightly misleading. The only way to know when your data has been "received", for any useful definition of "received", is to have a specific acknowledgment message in your protocol which indicates the data has been fully processed.
The data does not "leave" your network card, exactly. The best way to think of your program's relationship to the network is:
your program -> lots of confusing stuff -> the peer program
A list of things that might be in the "lots of confusing stuff":
the CLR
the operating system kernel
a virtualized network interface
a switch
a software firewall
a hardware firewall
a router performing network address translation
a router on the peer's end performing network address translation
So, if you are on a virtual machine, which is hosted under a different operating system, that has a software firewall which is controlling the virtual machine's network behavior - when has the data "really" left your network card? Even in the best case scenario, many of these components may drop a packet, which your network card will need to re-transmit. Has it "left" your network card when the first (unsuccessful) attempt has been made? Most networking APIs would say no, it hasn't been "sent" until the other end has sent a TCP acknowledgement.
That said, the documentation for NetworkStream.Write seems to indicate that it will not return until it has at least initiated the 'send' operation:
The Write method blocks until the requested number of bytes is sent or a SocketException is thrown.
Of course, "is sent" is somewhat vague for the reasons I gave above. There's also the possibility that the data will be "really" sent by your program and received by the peer program, but the peer will crash or otherwise not actually process the data. So you should do a Write followed by a Read of a message that will only be emitted by your peer when it has actually processed the message.
TCP is a "reliable" protocol, which means the data will be received at the other end if there are no socket errors. I have seen numerous efforts at second-guessing TCP with a higher level application confirmation, but IMHO this is usually a waste of time and bandwidth.
Typically the problem you describe is handled through normal client/server design, which in its simplest form goes like this...
The client sends a request to the server and does a blocking read on the socket waiting for some kind of response. If there is a problem with the TCP connection then that read will abort. The client should also use a timeout to detect any non-network related issue with the server. If the request fails or times out then the client can retry, report an error, etc.
Once the server has processed the request and sent the response it usually no longer cares what happens - even if the socket goes away during the transaction - because it is up to the client to initiate any further interaction. Personally, I find it very comforting to be the server. :-)
In general, I would recommend sending an acknowledgment from the client anyway. That way you can be 100% sure the data was received, and received correctly.
If I had to guess, the NetworkStream considers the data to have been sent once it hands the buffer off to the Windows Socket. So, I'm not sure there's a way to accomplish what you want via TcpClient.
I can not think of a scenario where NetworkStream.Write wouldn't send the data to the server as soon as possible. Barring massive network congestion or disconnection, it should end up on the other end within a reasonable time. Is it possible that you have a protocol issue? For instance, with HTTP the request headers must end with a blank line, and the server will not send any response until one occurs -- does the protocol in use have a similar end-of-message characteristic?
Here's some cleaner code than your original version, removing the delegate, field, and Thread.Sleep. It preforms the exact same way functionally.
void SendData(TcpClient tcp, byte[] data) {
NetworkStream ns = tcp.GetStream();
// BUG?: should bytWriteBuffer == data?
IAsyncResult r = ns.BeginWrite(bytWriteBuffer, 0, data.Length, null, null);
r.AsyncWaitHandle.WaitOne();
ns.EndWrite(r);
}
Looks like the question was modified while I wrote the above. The .WaitOne() may help your timeout issue. It can be passed a timeout parameter. This is a lazy wait -- the thread will not be scheduled again until the result is finished, or the timeout expires.
I try to understand the intent of .NET NetworkStream designers, and they must design it this way. After Write, the data to send are no longer handled by .NET. Therefore, it is reasonable that Write returns immediately (and the data will be sent out from NIC some time soon).
So in your application design, you should follow this pattern other than trying to make it working your way. For example, use a longer time out before received any data from the NetworkStream can compensate the time consumed before your command leaving the NIC.
In all, it is bad practice to hard code a timeout value inside source files. If the timeout value is configurable at runtime, everything should work fine.
How about using the Flush() method.
ns.Flush()
That should ensure the data is written before continuing.
Bellow .net is windows sockets which use TCP.
TCP uses ACK packets to notify the sender the data has been transferred successfully.
So the sender machine knows when data has been transferred but there is no way (that I am aware of) to get that information in .net.
edit:
Just an idea, never tried:
Write() blocks only if sockets buffer is full. So if we lower that buffers size (SendBufferSize) to a very low value (8? 1? 0?) we may get what we want :)
Perhaps try setting
tcp.NoDelay = true