What makes more sense?
use one socket to send and receive data to/from a embedded hardware device
use one socket to send data and separate socket to read data
Communication is not very intensive but the important point is to receive data as fast as possible. Application works under Windows XP and up.
Sockets were designed for two way communication, so most likely the developers of the embedded device didn't design their system to work off two sockets.
I have some experience working with embedded hardware and I've seen them work various ways:
Device connects to your application and starts streaming data via UDP
In this scenario I've seen up to three sockets in play. One TCP listening socket that accepts a connection from the embedded device. The embedded device then sends through some connection parameters, such as how quickly it's going to send you the data. The embedded device then starts streaming data via upd. Once you've received the data you send a message down a second upd socket to say "I got that one". The device then starts streaming the next bit of data (again via upd). This then continues ad infinitum. I've seen variations where the initial TCP connection is skipped and device just constantly stream data.
Request/Response
How many sockets you'll need here depends on who's making the initial connection, as that'll determine who needs the listening socket. Since you're making the initial connection, I'll use that. This is the more connection oriented scenario. Here you make a connection to the device and request some data, the device then sends you the response to that data. In this scenarioyou can only use one socket. As the device will respond to each request on the socket it was received.
So to answer you question "What makes more sense?", it completely depends on the design of your embedded device. If it's responding on the same socket as you're requesting, the answer is simple as only one socket is possible. Streaming devices via upd should give better performance with two sockets, but again only if your device supports it.
As for the second part of your question, "to receive data as fast as possible.", that's easy go asynchronous. Here are some excellent blogs on asynchronous socket programming:
.NET Sockets - Two Way - Single Client (C# Source Code - Included)
.NET Sockets in Two Directions with Multiple Client Support (C# Source Code Included)
If you're using a custom/third party protocol to communicate with the device you can't go wrong having a read through these either:
How to Transfer Fixed Sized Data With Async Sockets
Part 2: How to Transfer Variable Length Messages With Async Sockets
Im no expert but is there any downside to just using one socket?
It can already send and receive and my guess is that you end up getting more overhead if you have one socket for reading and one for sending...
Related
I'm working on a game that depends on the standard System.Net.Sockets library for networking. What's the most efficient and standardized "system" I should use? Should the client send data requests every set amount of seconds, when a certain event happens? My other question, is a port forward required for a client to listen and receive data? How is this done, is there another socket created specifically for listening only on the client? How can I send messages and listen on the same socket on the client? I'm having a difficult time grasping the concept of networking, I started messing with it two days ago.
Should the client send data requests every set amount of seconds, when a certain event happens?
No. Send your message as soon as you can. The socket stack has algorithms that determine when data is actually sent. For instance the Nagle algorithm.
However, if you send a LOT of messages it can be beneficial to enqueue everything in the same socket method call. However, you need to send several thousand of messages per client and second for that to give you any benefit.
My other question, is a port forward required for a client to listen and receive data?
No. Once a socket connection have been established it's bidirectional. i.e. both end points and send and receive information without screwing something up for the other end point.
But to achieve that you typically have to use asynchronous operations so that you can keep receiving all the time.
How is this done, is there another socket created specifically for listening only on the client?
The server has a dedicated socket (a listener) which only purpose is to accept client sockets. When the listener have accepted a new connection from a remote end point you get a new socket object which represents the connection to the newly connected endpoint.
How can I send messages and listen on the same socket on the client?
The easiest way is to use asynchronous receives and blocking sends.
If you do not want to take care of everything by yourself, you can try my Apache licensed library http://sharpmessaging.net.
Creating a stable, high quality server will require you to have a wealth of knowledge on networking and managing your objects.
I highly recommend you start with something smaller before attempting to create your own server from scratch, or at the very least play around with a server for a different game that's already made, attempt to improve upon it or add new features.
That being said, there are a few ways you can setup the server, if you plan on having more than a couple of clients you don't generally want them to all send data whenever they feel like it as this can bog down the server, you want to structure it in such a way that the client sends as little data as possible on a scheduled basis and the server can request more when its ready. How that's setup and structured is up to you.
A server generally has to have a port forwarded on the router in order for requests to make it to the server from the internet, and here is why. When your computer makes a connection to a website (stackoverflow for example) it sends out a request on a random port, the router remembers the port that you sent out on and remembers who sent it (you), when the server sends the information you requested back the router knows you wanted that data and sends it back to you, in the case of RUNNING a server there is no outbound request to a client (Jack for example), so the router doesnt know where jacks request is supposed to go. By adding a port forwarding rule in the router your saying that all information passed to port 25565 (for example) is supposed to go to your server.
Clients generally do not need to forward ports because they are only making outbound requests and receiving data.
Server Starts, server starts listening on port 25565
Client starts, client connects to server on port 25565 and initiates a connection
Server responds to client on whatever port the client used to connect (this is done behind the scenes in sockets)
Communication continues from here.
I'm writing an instant messaging server in C# for learning purposes.
My question is whether I should use synchronous or asynchronous sockets to handle the IM clients. The goal is to handle as many clients as possible.
I'm not quite sure but as far as I know with async sockets the packets don't arrive in order which means when you send 2 chat messages and there is a delay/lag it's possible that the second one arrive before the first one. Is this right and if so, is there a way to solve this issue?
About sync sockets: Is synchronous sockets a good solution for many clients? Do I have to check every socket/connection in a loop if there are new packets? If so, isn't this quite slow?
Last question: Assume I want to implement a way to send files (e.g. images) through the protocol (which is a non-standard binary protocol btw), can I still send messages while uploading?
The goal is to handle as many clients as possible.
Async then. It scales a lot better.
I'm not quite sure but as far as I know with async sockets the packets don't arrive in order which means when you send 2 chat messages and there is a delay/lag it's possible that the second one arrive before the first one.
TCP guarantees that everything arrives in order.
Assume I want to implement a way to send files (e.g. images) through the protocol (which is a non-standard binary protocol btw), can I still send messages while uploading
I recommend that you use a separate connection for file transfers. Use the first connection to do a handshake (determine which port to use and specify file name etc). Then use Socket.SendFile on the new socket to transfer the file.
Everything #jgauffin said (i.e. TCP handles packet-order, async better for n(clients) > 1000).
Assume I want to implement a way to send files (e.g. images) through the protocol (which is a non-standard binary protocol btw), can I still send messages while uploading?
Your custom protocol has to be built to support this. If you write a 8MB packet to the Socket, you won't be able to write anything else using that socket until the 8MB are sent. Instead, use upload-chunks of smaller size so that other packets have the chance to go over the pipe as well.
[UPLOAD id=123 START length=8012389]
[UPLOAD id=123 PART chunk=1 length=2048 data=...]
[UPLOAD id=123 PART chunk=2 length=2048 data=...]
[MESSAGE to="foo#example.com" text="Hi"]
[UPLOAD id=123 PART chunk=3 length=2048 data=...]
// ...
[UPLOAD id=123 COMPLETE checksum=0xdeadbeef]
The difference between an async approach and a sync approach is more about the difference between non-blocking and blocking io. With both approaches, the data is delivered in the same order that it has been transmitted. However, you don't block while you wait for an async call to complete, so you can start transmitting to all of your clients, before any of the individual communications has finished writing to the socket (which is why typically it would be the approach followed by servers).
If you go down the sync route, you block until each transmission / receive operation has completed, which means you may require need to run multiple threads to handle the clients.
As far as uploading an image at the same time as sending messages, you may want to handle that down a different pipe connection between the client/server so that it doesn't cause a blockage.
I need to create a server process which can push high frequency data (1000 updates per second) to around 50 client. I'm thinking the best way you do this is using async sockets with the SocketAsyncEventArgs type.
The client -> server connections will be long running at least several days to indefinite. I plan to have a server process listening and the clients connect and the server starts pushing the data to the clients.
Can someone point me to or show me an example of how to do this? I can't find any example showing a server process pushing an object to a client.
EDIT: This is over a gigibit LAN. Using windows server with 16 cores and 24gb ram
thanks
First, some more requirements from your side is required. You have server with lots of muscle, but it will fail miserably if you don't do what has to be done.
can the client live without some of the data? I mean, does the stream of the data need to reach other side in proper order, without any drops?
how big is 'the data'? few bytes or?
fact: scheduling interval on windows is 10 msec.
fact: no matter WHEN you send, clients will receive it depending on lots of stuff - network config, number of routers in-between, client processor load, and so on. so you need some kind of timestamping here
Depending on all this, you could design a priority queue with one thread servicing it and sending out UDP datagrams for each client. Also, since (4) is in effect, you can 'clump' some of your data together and have 10 updates per second of 100 data.
If you want to achieve something else, then LAN will be required here with lots of quality network equipment.
If you want to use .NET Sockets to create this server-client project, then this is a good outline of what's needed:
Since the server will be transferring data to several clients simultaneously, you'll need to use the asynchronous Socket.Beginxxx methods or the SocketAsyncEventArgs class.
You'll have clients connect to your server. The server will accept those connections and then add the newly connected client to an internal clients list.
You'll have a thread running within the server, that periodically sends notifications to all sockets in the clients list. If any exceptions/errors occurs while sending data to a socket, then that client is removed from the list.
You'll have to make sure that access to the clients list is synchronized since the server is a multithreaded application.
You don't need to worry about buffering your send data since the TCP stack takes care of that. If you do not want to buffer your data at all (i.e. have the socket send data immediately), then set Socket.NoDelay to true.
It doesn't seem like you need any data from your clients, but if you do, you'd have to make sure your server has a Socket.BeginReceive loop if using Socket.BeginXXX pattern or Socket.ReceiveAsync method if using SocketAsyncEventArgs.
Once you have the connection and transmission of data between server and client going, you then need to worry about serialization and deserialization of objects between client and server.
Serialization which occurs on the server is easy, since you can use the BinaryFormatter or other encoders to encode your object and dump the data onto the socket.
Deserialization on the other hand, which occurs on the client, can be pretty complex because an object can span multiple packets and you can have multiple objects in one packet. You essentially need a way to identify the beginning and end of an object within the stream, so that you can pluck out the object data and deserialize it.
One way to do this is to embed your data in a well known protocol, like HTTP, and send it using that format. Unfortunately, this also means you'd have to write a HTTP parser at the client. Not an easy task.
Another way is to leverage an existing encoding scheme like Google's protocol buffers. This approach would require learning how to use the protocol buffers stack.
You can also embed the data in an XML structure and then have a stream-to-XML decoder on your client side. This is probably the easiest approach but the least efficient.
As you can see, this is not an easy project, but you can get started with the Socket.BeginSend examples here and here, and the SocketAsyncEventArgs example here
Other Tips:
You can improve the reliability of your communication by having the client maintain two connections to the server for redundancy purposes. The reason being that TCP connections take a while to establish, so if one fails, you can still receive data from the other one while the client attempts to reconnect the failed connection.
You can look into using TCPClient class for the client implementation, since it's mostly reading a stream from a network connection.
What about rendezvous or 29 west? It would save reinventing the wheel. Dunno about amqp or zeromq they might work fine too....
My program uses sockets for inter-process communication. There is one server listening on a socket port(B) on localhost waiting for a list of TCP clients to connect. And on the other end of the server is another a socket(A) that sends out data to internet. The server is designed to take everything the TCP clients send him and forward to a server on the internet. My question is if two of the TCP clients happened to send data at the same time, is this going to be a problem for the server's outgoing socket(A)?
Thanks
The MSDN docs recommend that you use BeginSend and EndSend if multiple threads will be using the same socket to transmit data.
So I would suggest that you either use those methods or write outgoing data to a synchronized queue, from which a single thread will then pick data off of the queue and send it over socket(A)
You don't describe how you multiplex the traffic of multiple client streams onto a single outgoing stream. Just arbitrarily putting chunks of client traffic into the stream is guaranteed not the work. The receiving end on the opposite end of the intertube will have no idea what bytes belong to what conversation.
I'd recommend you focus on the opposite end first. What machine is out there, what does it do, what does it need to know about the multiple clients at the local end.
Can anyone help, i trying to figure what i need to do, i have been given the tasks of writing a server and a client in TCP (UDP). basically multiple clients will connect to the server.. and the server sends MESSSAGES to the client.
I have no problem in creating the server and client but with tcp i am unsure whcih way to go. DOes the .net 3.5 support everything or do i need to go on the hunt for some component?
I am looking for soome good examples with c# for TCP or UDP. THis is where i am not 100% sure .. as far as i know there is UDP and TCP ... 1 is connected and 1 is not.. So which way do i go and can c# support both?? Advantages /Disadvantages?
Say if the server has to support multiple clients that i only need to open 1 port or do i need to open 2?
Also if a client crashes i need for it not to effect the SERVER hence the server can either ignore it and close connection if one is open or timeout a connection... If in fact a connection is needed again going back to tcp udp
Any ideas where i shoudl beging and choosing which protocol and amount of ports i am going to need to assign?
thanks
UDP cons:
packet size restriction means you can only send small messages (less than about 1.5k bytes).
Lack of stream makes it hard to secure UDP: hard to do an authentication scheme that works on lossy exchange, and just as hard to protect the integrity and confidentiality of individual messages (no key state to rely on).
No delivery guarantee means your target must be prepared to deal with message loss. Now is easy to argue that if the target can handle a total loss of messages (which is possible) then why bother to send them in the first place?
UDP Pros:
No need to store a system endpoint on the server for each client (ie. no socket). This is one major reason why MMO games connected to hundred of thousands of clients use UDP.
Speed: The fact that each message is routed individually means that you cannot hit a stream congestion like TCP can.
Broadcast: UDP can broadcast to all listeners on a network segment.
You shouldn't even consider UDP if you're considering TCP too. If you're considering TCP means you are thinking in terms of a stream (exactly once in order messages) and using UDP will put the burden of fragmentation, retry and acknowledgment, duplicate detection and ordering in your app. You'll be in no time reinventing TCP in your application and it took all engineers in the word 20 years to get that right (or at least as right as it is in IPv4).
If you're unfamiliar with these topics I recommend you go with the flow and use WCF, at least it gives you the advantage of switching in and out with relative ease various transports and protocols. Will be much harder to change your code base from TCP to UDP and vice versa if you made the wrong choice using raw .Net socket components.
It sounds to me like you're not clear on the distinction between TCP and UDP.
TCP is connection oriented. i.e. 2 peers will have a dedicated connection. Packet delivery and ordering is guaranteed. Typically a server will present a port, and multiple clients can connect to that port (think of a HTTP server and browsers).
UDP is connectionless. It doesn't guarantee packet delivery, nor ordering. You can implement broadcast and multicast mechanisms very easily. If you need some sort of reliability, you will have to implement this on top of UDP. Sometimes you may not care, and simply issue requests and retry on no response (SNMP does this). Because it's connectionless, you don't really worry about peers being up/down. You just have to retry if required.
So your choice of protocol is dictated by the above. e.g. does your client require a dedicated connection to the server ? Are you transmitting the same data to multiple clients ? Can you tolerate packet loss (e.g. real time price updates etc.). Perhaps it's feasible to use both TCP and UDP for different requirements within your app (e.g. TCP for registering orders, UDP for transmitting price updates/events?)
I'd consider your requirements, and familiarise yourself with the limitations and features of TCP and UDP. That should make things a little clearer.
Is there a requirement to do this at such a low level? Why not use WCF? It fully supports messaging over TCP/IP, using binary data transfer, but it's at a much higher level of abstraction than raw sockets.
Everything you need is in .Net 3.5 (and probably below). Check out the documentation and examples with the UdpClient class at MSDN for insight into how to write your client/server. A quick google found some sample code for a server and client at www.java2s.com among many other networking examples in C#. Don't be put off by the domain name.