Develop Reference

TCPServer AcceptSocket() hangs even though there is a pending connection

I have a TCPServer running for file receiving, and it works 99% of the time, but it will sometimes(randomly it seems) hang on the AcceptSocket() line even though I wait for the Pending() Flag to be true. Here is the code I am using for the server. (I am aware Thread.Sleep() is bleh, but that is not the issue at hand... I don't think).
// wait for the file connection
int elapsed = 0; bool timeout = false; int overtime = 60000;
while (fileServer.Pending() == false && (elapsed < overtime))
{
Thread.Sleep(1000);
elapsed += 1000;
if (elapsed > overtime)
timeout = true;
}
if (timeout)
{
Program.EventMessage("FILE SERVER TIMEOUT, NO FILE RECIEVED");
incoming_file = false;
continue;
}
Program.EventMessage("OPENING SOCKET");
fileSocketForClient = fileServer.AcceptSocket();
Basically, since this code does work. What would cause the issue of AcceptSocket() hanging even though it has a pending connection?
Is there anyway to check to see if the Socket Accepting is blocking that I could implement a timeout?
I'd like for the socket to remain blocking as the rest of the application does need this operation to be completed to move forward, it just needs a timeout or something so if it does crap out, can recover without having to manually restart the entire program.
Issue found, and I know what I need to do to fix it (timeout AcceptSocket()), but scrounging around SO I have not found a viable way to do so yet.
As a temporary band-aid I have moved this to multithreaded, so at least when it dies the server can still go... there will just be the forever blocking thread to deal with.

A connection was pending. Does that mean a connection will still be pending later? No. Status functions don't predict the future.
"I'm smart enough to think of every possible way a socket operation could block and make sure that doesn't happen, so I can use blocking socket operations and still be assured they'll never block." No, you aren't. Don't even try. It won't work. Use non-blocking socket operations.

How to make a program not utilize 100% cpu?

There are 5 threads running in an infinite loop.
2 of them will send messages when queue is not empty.
4 of them will keep sending heartbeat within 5 minutes.
1 of them is to request data from another source.
When it utilizes 100% of the CPU, I can not use any other applications in the window. The whole window becomes very slow.
EDIT: can sleep be put after WaitOne?
if(autoEvent.WaitOne())
{
}
else
{
}
Thread.Sleep(100);
Can sleep be put after subscriber.Recv() which is ZeroMQ ?
all threads i put a sleep if no Recv(), however there is one thread i do not dare to put a sleep in realtime datafeed thread which has only client.Send, will just one thread cause 100% ?

Q: How to make a program not utilize 100% CPU?
A: Don't create a busy loop!!!!
Blocking is Good. There are lots of ways to accomplish "block until there's something to do". Including using an alarm signal or timer (poor, but a definite improvement), doing a socket read with a timeout (if you happen to be notified with a network socket) or using a Windows Event object with a timeout.
Failing all else, you can always use a "Sleep()". I would discourage using "Sleep" if you can avoid it - there are almost always much better design strategies. But it will keep you from a 100% CPU busy loop ;)
=======================================
Addendum: you posted some code (thank you!)
You're using xxx.WaitOne().
Just use WaitOne() (a blocking call), with a timeout. This is an IDEAL solution: no busy loop, no "Sleep" required!
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa332441%28v=vs.71%29.aspx

Put System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(100) (100 milliseconds sleep = time for system to do something else) in your infinite loops.

For the threads that send messages, when the queue is emtpy, use a ResetEvent
DeliverMessageThread_DoWork
{
while(true)
{
if(GetNextMessage() == null)
MyAutoResetEvent.WaitOne(); // The thread will suspend here until the ARE is signalled
else
{
DeliverMessage();
Thread.Sleep(10); // Give something else a chance to do something
}
}
}
MessageGenerator_NewMessageArrived(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
MyAutoResetEvent.Set(); // If the deliver message thread is suspended, it will carry on now until there are no more messages to send
}
This way, you won't have 2 threads chewing up all of the CPU cycles all of the time

CPU usage problem

I have a network project, there is no timer in it. just a tcpclient that connect to a server and listen to receive any data from network.
TcpClient _TcpClient = new TcpClient(_IpAddress, _Port);
_ConnectThread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(ConnectToServer));
_ConnectThread.IsBackground = true;
_ConnectThread.Start();
private void ConnectToServer()
{
try
{
NetworkStream _NetworkStream = _TcpClient.GetStream();
byte[] _RecievedPack = new byte[1024 * 1000];
string _Message = string.Empty;
int _BytesRead;
int _Length;
while (_Flage)
{
_BytesRead = _NetworkStream.Read(_RecievedPack, 0, _RecievedPack.Length);
_Length = BitConverter.ToInt32(_RecievedPack, 0);
_Message = UTF8Encoding.UTF8.GetString(_RecievedPack, 4, _Length);
if (_BytesRead != 0)
{
//call a function to manage the data
_NetworkStream.Flush();
}
}
}
catch (Exception exp)
{
// call a function to alarm that connection is false
}
}
But after a while the cpu usage of my application goes up(90%, 85%,...).
even if no data receive.
could anybody give me some tips about cpu usage. I'm totally blank. i don't know i should check which part of the project!

could anybody give me some tips about cpu usage
You should consider checking the loops in the application, like while loop, if you are spend so much time waiting for some condition to became true, then it will take much CPU time. for instance
while (true)
{}
or
while (_Flag)
{
//do something
}
If the code executed inside the while are synchronous, then the thread will be ending eating much of CPU cycles. to solve this problem you could executes the code inside the while in a different thread, so it will be asynchronous, and then use ManualResetEvent or AutoResetEvent to report back when operation executed, another thing to mentioned is to consider using System.Threading.Thread.Sleep method to till the thread to sleep and give the cpu time to execute other threads, example:
while(_Flag)
{
//do something
Thread.Sleep(100);//Blocks the current thread for 100 milliseconds
}

There are several issues with your code... the most important ones are IMHO:
Use async methods (BeginRead etc.), not blocking methods, and don't create your own thread. Thread are "expensive>" resources - and using blocking calls in threads is therefore a waste of resources. Using async calls lets the operating system call you back when an event (data received for instance) occured, so that no separate thread is needed (the callback runs with a pooled thread).
Be aware that Read may return just a few bytes, it doesn't have to fill the _ReceivedPackbuffer. Theoretically, it may just receive one or two bytes - not even enough for your call to ToInt32!

The CPU usage spikes, because you have a while loop, which does not do anything, if it does not receive anything from the network. Add Thread.Sleep() at the end of it, if not data was received, and your CPU usage will be normal.
And take the advice, that Lucero gave you.

I suspect that the other end of the connection is closed when the while loop is still running, in which case you'll repeatedly read zero bytes from the network stream (marking connection closed; see NetworkStream.Read on MSDN).
Since NetworkStream.Read will then return immediately (as per MSDN), you'll be stuck in a tight while loop that will consume a lot of processor time. Try adding a Thread.Sleep() or detecting a "zero read" within the loop. Ideally you should handle a read of zero bytes by terminating your end of the connection, too.
while (_Flage)
{
_BytesRead = _NetworkStream.Read(_RecievedPack, 0, _RecievedPack.Length);
_Length = BitConverter.ToInt32(_RecievedPack, 0);
_Message = UTF8Encoding.UTF8.GetString(_RecievedPack, 4, _Length);
if (_BytesRead != 0)
{
//call a function to manage the data
_NetworkStream.Flush();
}
}

Have you attached a debugger and stepped through the code to see if it's behaving in the way you expect?
Alternatively, if you have a profiling tool available (such as ANTs) then this will help you see where time is being spent in your application.

C# Socket.BeginSend Sometimes Seems to Behave Synchronously?

While attempting to send a message for a queue through the BeginSend call seem te behave as a blocking call.
Specificly I have:
public void Send(MyMessage message)
{
lock(SEND_LOCK){
var state = ...
try {
log.Info("Begin Sending...");
socket.BeginSend(message.AsBytes(),0, message.ByteLength, SocketFlags.None,
(r) => EndSend(r), state);
log.Info("Begin Send Complete.");
}
catch (SocketException e) {
...
}
}
}
The callback would be something like this:
private void EndSend(IAsyncResult result) {
log.Info("EndSend: Ending send.");
var state = (MySendState) result.AsyncState;
...
state.Socket.EndSend(result, out code);
log.Info("EndSend: Send ended.");
WaitUntilNewMessageInQueue();
SendNextMessage();
}
Most of the time this works fine, but sometimes it hangs. Logging indicates this happens when BeginSend en EndSend are excecuted on the same Thread. The WaitUntilNewMessageInQueue blocks until there is a new message in the queue, so when there is no new message it can wait quit a while.
As far as I can tell this should not really be a problem, but in the some cases BeginSend blocks causing a deadlock situation where EndSend is blocking on WaitUntilNewMessageInQueue (expected), but Send is blocking on BeginSend in return as it seems te be waiting for the EndSend callback te return (not expected).
This behaviour was not what I was expecting. Why does BeginSend sometimes block if the callback does not return in timely fashion?

First of all, why are you locking in your Send method? The lock will be released before the send is complete since you are using BeginSend. The result is that multiple sends can be executing at the same time.
Secondly, do not write (r) => EndSend(r), just write EndSend (without any parameters).
Thrid: You do not need to include the socket in your state. Your EndSend method is working like any other instance method. You can therefore access the socket field directly.
As for your deadlocks, it's hard to tell. You delegate may have something to do with it (optimizations by the compiler / runner). But I have no knowledge in that area.
Need more help? Post more code. but I suggest that you fix the issues above (all four of them) and try again first.

Which operating system are you running on?
Are you sure you're seeing what you think you're seeing?
The notes on the MSDN page say that Send() CAN block if there's no OS buffer space to initiate your async send unless you have put the socket in non blocking mode. Could that be the case? Are you potentially sending data very quickly and filling the TCP window to the peer? If you break into the debugger what does the call stack show?
The rest is speculation based on my understanding of the underlying native technologies involved...
The notes for Send() are likely wrong about I/O being cancelled if the thread exits, this almost certainly depends on the underlying OS as it's a low level IO Completion Port/overlapped I/O issue that changed with Windows Vista (see here: http://www.lenholgate.com/blog/2008/02/major-vista-overlapped-io-change.html) and given that they're wrong about that then they could be wrong about how the completions (calls to EndSend() are dispatched on later operating systems). From Vista onwards it's possible that the completions could be dispatched on the issuing thread if the .Net sockets wrapper is enabling the correct options on the socket (see here where I talk about FILE_SKIP_COMPLETION_PORT_ON_SUCCESS)... However, if this were the case then it's likely that you'd see this behaviour a lot as initially most sends are likely to complete 'in line' and so you'd see most completions happening on the same thread - I'm pretty sure that this is NOT the case and that .Net does NOT enable this option without asking...

This is how you check if it completed synchronously so you avoid the callback on another thread.
For a single send:
var result = socket.BeginSend(...);
if (result.CompletedSynchronously)
{
socket.EndSend(result);
}
For a queue of multiple sends, you can just loop and finalize all synchronous sends:
while (true)
{
var result = socket.BeginSend(...);
if (!result.CompletedSynchronously)
{
break;
}
socket.EndSend(result);
}

C#: Handling terminate signal in TCP handler thread?

I am using the TcpClient class in C#.
Each time there is a new tcp connection request, the usual practice is to create a new thread to handle it. And it should be possible for the main thread to terminate these handler threads anytime.
My solution for each of these handler thread is as follows:
1 Check NetworkStream's DataAvailable method
1.1 If new data available then read and process new data
1.2 If end of stream then self terminate
2 Check for terminate signal from main thread
2.1 If terminate signal activated then self terminate
3 Goto 1.
The problem with this polling approach is that all of these handler threads will be taking up significant processor resources and especially so if there is a huge number of these threads. This makes it highly inefficient.
Is there a better way of doing this?

See Asynchronous Server Socket Example to learn how to do this the ".NET way", without creating new threads for each request.

Believe it or not that 1000 tick sleep will really keep things running smooth.
private readonly Queue<Socket> sockets = new Queue<Socket>();
private readonly object locker = new object();
private readonly TimeSpan sleepTimeSpan = new TimeSpan(1000);
private volatile Boolean terminate;
private void HandleRequests()
{
Socket socket = null;
while (!terminate)
{
lock (locker)
{
socket = null;
if (sockets.Count > 0)
{
socket = sockets.Dequeue();
}
}
if (socket != null)
{
// process
}
Thread.Sleep(sleepTimeSpan);
}
}

I remember working on a similar kind of Windows Service. It was a NTRIP Server that can take around 1000 TCP connections and route the data to a NTRIP Caster.
If you have a dedicated server for this application then it will not be a problem unless you add more code to each thread (File IO, Database etc - although in my case I also had Database processing to log the in/out for each connection).
The things to watch out for:
Bandwidth when the threads goes up to 600 or so. You will start seeing disconnections when the TCP Buffer window is choked for some reason or the available bandwidth falls short
The operating system on which you are running this application might have some restrictions, which can cause disconnections
The above might not be applicable in your case but I just wanted it put it here because I faced then during development.

You're right that you do not want all of your threads "busy waiting" (i.e. running a small loop over and over). You either want them blocking, or you want to use asynchronous I/O.
As John Saunders mentioned, asynchronous I/O is the "right way" to do this, since it can scale up to hundreds of connections. Basically, you call BeginRead() and pass it a callback function. BeginRead() returns immediately, and when data arrives, the callback function is invoked on a thread from the thread pool. The callback function processes the data, calls BeginRead() again, and then returns, which releases the thread back into the pool.
However, if you'll only be holding a handful of connections open at a time, it's perfectly fine to create a thread for each connection. Instead of checking the DataAvailable property in a loop, go ahead and call Read(). The thread will block, consuming no CPU, until data is available to read. If the connection is lost, or you close it from another thread, the Read() call will throw an exception, which you can handle by terminating your reader thread.