Hi group,
I've written a client/server application, using the dotnet sockets.
In my server, I have a thread waiting for messages with :
ret = currSocket.Rece ive(buffer, 1024, SocketFlags.Non e);
When the client exits, I close the socket with a specific message
(like "end") and the thread terminate in a proper manner, but If my
client crashes, the server is still waiting for receiving data, and
the thread is blocked.
How can I detect that the client is out ? (then, if I can detect it,
maybe I can terminate the thread brutally (or if there's a better
way ...))
Thanks for your help,
N.
9  5572 
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 08:57:59 -0700, <ti*********@gm ail.comwrote:
[...]
When the client exits, I close the socket with a specific message
(like "end") and the thread terminate in a proper manner, but If my
client crashes, the server is still waiting for receiving data, and
the thread is blocked.
How can I detect that the client is out ? (then, if I can detect it,
maybe I can terminate the thread brutally (or if there's a better
way ...))
Generally (as you've found) TCP/IP won't detect a broken connection until
the detecting end attempts some actual i/o. That is, tries to send and
fails. If only receiving, it will sit and continue to try to receive
indefinitely. This allows TCP/IP to be able to transparently deal with
the situation where both endpoints are fine, but something in between is
temporarily interrupted.
The two usual approaches are to either implement a timeout (when the
receiver knows it should receive some data within a certain amount of
time), or provides a mechanism for the user to interrupt the receiver (at
which point it would simply close the socket). Sometimes these are both
used.
Pete
Peter Duniho a écrit :
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 08:57:59 -0700, <ti*********@gm ail.comwrote:
[...]
When the client exits, I close the socket with a specific message
(like "end") and the thread terminate in a proper manner, but If my
client crashes, the server is still waiting for receiving data, and
the thread is blocked.
How can I detect that the client is out ? (then, if I can detect it,
maybe I can terminate the thread brutally (or if there's a better
way ...))
Generally (as you've found) TCP/IP won't detect a broken connection until
the detecting end attempts some actual i/o. That is, tries to send and
fails. If only receiving, it will sit and continue to try to receive
indefinitely. This allows TCP/IP to be able to transparently deal with
the situation where both endpoints are fine, but something in between is
temporarily interrupted.
The two usual approaches are to either implement a timeout (when the
receiver knows it should receive some data within a certain amount of
time), or provides a mechanism for the user to interrupt the receiver (at
which point it would simply close the socket). Sometimes these are both
used.
Pete
Thanks for your answer,
so i think i have to try to send something to the client that has
crashed, and if an exception occurs, then the client is deconnected.
Or maybe, i have to use the timeout, the if timed out, i try to send
something to check if the client is still here
do you think it is a good idea ?
Should I use the SendTimeout property with the Send() method ?
Hi,
<ti*********@gm ail.comwrote in message
news:11******** **************@ y66g2000hsf.goo glegroups.com.. .
Hi group,
I've written a client/server application, using the dotnet sockets.
In my server, I have a thread waiting for messages with :
ret = currSocket.Rece ive(buffer, 1024, SocketFlags.Non e);
When the client exits, I close the socket with a specific message
(like "end") and the thread terminate in a proper manner, but If my
client crashes, the server is still waiting for receiving data, and
the thread is blocked.
How can I detect that the client is out ? (then, if I can detect it,
maybe I can terminate the thread brutally (or if there's a better
way ...))
You cannot, y ou have to be ready to receive an IO exception.
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 12:03:21 -0700, <ti*********@gm ail.comwrote:
[...]
so i think i have to try to send something to the client that has
crashed, and if an exception occurs, then the client is deconnected.
That would be one way to detect the situation, yes.
Or maybe, i have to use the timeout, the if timed out, i try to send
something to check if the client is still here
You can either use the timeout itself as an indication of connection
failure, or you can attempt to send data after the timeout. Either one
will work, and which one you want depends on your needs.
do you think it is a good idea ?
Not really. I mean, I don't know your particular situation but it's my
opinion that enforcing a failure for no immediate need or reason isn't
useful.
The server has no way to know if the connection has failed due to a
client-side crash, or simply due to a temporary problem with the network.
A temporary problem may resolve itself and so detecting that condition is
pointless and results in unnecessarily closing the connection.
IMHO, it would be better to simply let the server continue to assume that
the connection is valid unless there is some explicit, non-arbitrary
verification that it's not. This could include:
* The server actually needs to send data to the client and the error
is detected at that time
* The server receives a second connection request from the same client
(detected by IP address or by some unique client ID, such as a username
and/or password)
* Someone with access to the server (by whatever mechanism you
choose...could be a remote control interface, or simply a button on the UI
of the server on the same computer it's running on) explicitly closes the
connection
If you are concerned about the connection remaining open and consuming
resources that are needed for other valid connections, then you could
simply wait until such time as you need those resources (eg you get an
exception creating a socket or accepting a connection) and then close
existing connections that have been idle the longest, and idle for some
reasonable minimum amount of time (what time is "reasonable " depends
entirely on your needs).
Should I use the SendTimeout property with the Send() method ?
It seems to me that if it's the receive you want to apply the timeout to,
then it's the ReceiveTimeout property you want to set.
I don't know how the .NET Socket implementation of ReceiveTimeout works,
but if it's the same as the regular Winsock note that if and when the
socket times out, it is no longer usable. So, if you want to send data
after the timeout, you need to implement the timeout some other way (using
a timer, for example).
In other words:
* If you are simply going to close the socket after the timeout
occurs, use ReceiveTimeout
* If you are going to query the other endpoint to see if they are
still connected after the timeout, use your own timer and then when it
expires do the send. Of course, if the other end replies, your receive
will complete and you'll have to initiate it again to wait for real data.
If you are doing the latter, you may find that using SetSocketOption with
the KeepAlive option is preferable. Though, I don't see any way in .NET
to change the keep-alive interval, so if the default of 2 hours isn't
appropriate for your situation, you may have to implement the timeout
manually as above.
Of course, keep in mind my comments about. This timeout stuff may or may
not be the correct way to address the issue. As I said, I don't
personally think that arbitrarily timing out a connection is necessarily
the right thing to do. There are other ways to address the situation of a
crashed client...there are situations in which timeouts make sense, but
because of the chance of a false positive with timeouts, they should only
be used when you really want a timeout specifically, rather than when you
are trying to address some other issue.
Pete
On 3 avr, 22:50, "Peter Duniho" <NpOeStPe...@nn owslpianmk.comw rote:
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 12:03:21 -0700, <timor.su...@gm ail.comwrote:
[...]
so i think i have to try to send something to the client that has
crashed, and if an exception occurs, then the client is deconnected.
That would be one way to detect the situation, yes.
Or maybe, i have to use the timeout, the if timed out, i try to send
something to check if the client is still here
You can either use the timeout itself as an indication of connection
failure, or you can attempt to send data after the timeout. Either one
will work, and which one you want depends on your needs.
do you think it is a good idea ?
Not really. I mean, I don't know your particular situation but it's my
opinion that enforcing a failure for no immediate need or reason isn't
useful.
The server has no way to know if the connection has failed due to a
client-side crash, or simply due to a temporary problem with the network.
A temporary problem may resolve itself and so detecting that condition is
pointless and results in unnecessarily closing the connection.
IMHO, it would be better to simply let the server continue to assume that
the connection is valid unless there is some explicit, non-arbitrary
verification that it's not. This could include:
* The server actually needs to send data to the client and the error
is detected at that time
* The server receives a second connection request from the same client
(detected by IP address or by some unique client ID, such as a username
and/or password)
* Someone with access to the server (by whatever mechanism you
choose...could be a remote control interface, or simply a button on the UI
of the server on the same computer it's running on) explicitly closes the
connection
If you are concerned about the connection remaining open and consuming
resources that are needed for other valid connections, then you could
simply wait until such time as you need those resources (eg you get an
exception creating a socket or accepting a connection) and then close
existing connections that have been idle the longest, and idle for some
reasonable minimum amount of time (what time is "reasonable " depends
entirely on your needs).
Should I use the SendTimeout property with the Send() method ?
It seems to me that if it's the receive you want to apply the timeout to,
then it's the ReceiveTimeout property you want to set.
I don't know how the .NET Socket implementation of ReceiveTimeout works,
but if it's the same as the regular Winsock note that if and when the
socket times out, it is no longer usable. So, if you want to send data
after the timeout, you need to implement the timeout some other way (using
a timer, for example).
In other words:
* If you are simply going to close the socket after the timeout
occurs, use ReceiveTimeout
* If you are going to query the other endpoint to see if they are
still connected after the timeout, use your own timer and then when it
expires do the send. Of course, if the other end replies, your receive
will complete and you'll have to initiate it again to wait for real data.
If you are doing the latter, you may find that using SetSocketOption with
the KeepAlive option is preferable. Though, I don't see any way in .NET
to change the keep-alive interval, so if the default of 2 hours isn't
appropriate for your situation, you may have to implement the timeout
manually as above.
Of course, keep in mind my comments about. This timeout stuff may or may
not be the correct way to address the issue. As I said, I don't
personally think that arbitrarily timing out a connection is necessarily
the right thing to do. There are other ways to address the situation of a
crashed client...there are situations in which timeouts make sense, but
because of the chance of a false positive with timeouts, they should only
be used when you really want a timeout specifically, rather than when you
are trying to address some other issue.
Pete
Thanks for your answer, I will try all o see what fits the better for
my problem
Can I consider that 30 secs is enough to say that a connection is
lost ?
Best regards,
Nico ...
How can I detect that the client is out ? (then, if I can detect it,
maybe I can terminate the thread brutally (or if there's a better
way ...))
You must try to send something to client, there is no other way.
Usually it is solved by implementing KeepAlive message every while.
This is also important because, for example, Windows could kill an
active connection when there was no traffic for some time.
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 22:53:51 -0700, <ti*********@gm ail.comwrote:
[...]
Can I consider that 30 secs is enough to say that a connection is
lost ?
Impossible for me to say. Impossible for anyone but you to say, really.
It just depends on the nature of the protocol you're implementing and
whether it should never go 30 seconds without seeing any date or not.
Keeping in mind, of course, that temporary interruptions in the connection
may slow things down beyond what normal gaps in the data would be. So if
you normally would see 30 second gaps, then the timeout needs to be
something larger than that.
There are lots of reasons that it's better to use some other mechanism
than a timeout. One of them is that it can be difficult to know in
advance what a suitable timeout value is.
Pete
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 00:01:41 -0700, mirko <mi***@gmail.co mwrote:
You must try to send something to client, there is no other way.
Usually it is solved by implementing KeepAlive message every while.
This is also important because, for example, Windows could kill an
active connection when there was no traffic for some time.
Windows will not kill a connection. Your socket will remain valid and
connected for as long as your application leaves it open.
Pete
On 4 avr, 10:20, "Peter Duniho" <NpOeStPe...@nn owslpianmk.comw rote:
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 00:01:41 -0700, mirko <m...@gmail.com wrote:
You must try to send something to client, there is no other way.
Usually it is solved by implementing KeepAlive message every while.
This is also important because, for example, Windows could kill an
active connection when there was no traffic for some time.
Windows will not kill a connection. Your socket will remain valid and
connected for as long as your application leaves it open.
Pete
ok
thanks for your answers,
that solves my problem
Best regards,
N. This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics | |
by: James Yang |
last post by:
Hi,
I am using Sockets to connect to a remote computer and send data using
Socket.Send() and receive using Socket.Receive() (block mode) . for
somereason tho, when the client disconnects the Socket.Receive() just passes
without any exception. Is there any way to detect disconnection using
Sockets?
I believe I saw a way of doing this using IAsyncResult, and eventhandling
but..no article really explained how to use it properly.
|
by: Adam Clauss |
last post by:
There seems to be various methods to determine when the remote client disconnects, but all of them I have seen are Synchronous.
AKA: Right before you try to send or receive data, check.
Is there no way to do raise an event for this? That way you know as soon as the client disconnects?
There are events for Accepting, Connecting, Receiving, Sending... why not one for disconnecting?
--
Adam Clauss
cabadam@tamu.edu
|
by: Valerie Hough |
last post by:
I have a process which accepts multiple asynchronous TCP socket connections.
Periodically I want this task to check for abnormal disconnection by each
client. The code that detects this correctly is:
if (( socket.Poll( 1, SelectMode.Read )) &&
( socket.Available == 0 ))
{
// abnormal disconnect
}
|
by: Abubakar |
last post by:
Hi,
lets say I have a connected SOCKET s. At some point in time, I want to know
if the "s" is still valid, that it is still connected. Is there any API that
I can give me this information?
And can I register some callback like thing, that would inform me when "s"
disconnection happens? What I usually do is while I call "send" or "recv", I
get the socket_error and through that I know whats the status. But in this
situation actually I...
|
by: Macca |
last post by:
Hi,
I am using an asynchronous socket server for my comms.I have multiple
clients that connect to my server and hopefully stay connected sending data
approx every 500ms.
I want to make it robust as possible and was wondering how I would
efficently detect a socket failure/disconnection and recover from it.
Would it be up to the client to re-establish the connection?
| | |
by: xincmu |
last post by:
I built a very basic server-client in C#. When my server disconnects
from the client, the socket at the server is already disconnected, but
the socket the client remains open. I used the sample code in .Net's
documentation to disconnect:
socket.Shutdown( SocketShutdown.Both );
socket.Disconnect( false );
I also tried
|
by: Cheryl |
last post by:
Hi. I am having a problem on handling asynchronous sockets in C#. I
implemented a pair of client and server sockets. The connection is ok when
first connected. However, when I turned off the server socket, the client
is able to connect, but cannot send anything out. It seems that the
Socket.Connected is false but I received no disconnection event. Any idea
on how to solve the problem?
Thanks.
|
by: dougmcmurtry |
last post by:
I have an Asynchronous socket that sends data to a server for credit
card approvals. The socket is kept alive by the server through a
heartbeat that sends a "beat" every 90 seconds. Trouble is that the
network is unreliable at times and thus the server will drop my
connection from time to time. I need to code around this so I can
reconnect to the server whenever this happens.
THE PROBLEM:
The Connected, Poll, and Available properties...
|
by: Adam Clauss |
last post by:
A while back I posted regarding a problem we were having with one of our
applications which was randomly crashing. Monitoring memory usage revealed
a spike in nonpaged pool memory just prior to the crash each time.
We finally think we have narrowed down the cause of this to a user (located
semi-remotely) who would connect into our system and disconnect
"ungracefully" (literally, by pulling his network cable). Connections here
are all...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can effortlessly switch the default language on Windows 10 without reinstalling. I'll walk you through it.
First, let's disable language synchronization. With a Microsoft account, language settings sync across devices. To prevent any complications,...
|
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers, it seems that the internal comparison operator "<=>" tries to promote arguments from unsigned to signed.
This is as boiled down as I can make it.
Here is my compilation command:
g++-12 -std=c++20 -Wnarrowing bit_field.cpp
Here is the code in...
| | |
by: jinu1996 |
last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven tapestry of website design and digital marketing. It's not merely about having a website; it's about crafting an immersive digital experience that captivates audiences and drives business growth.
The Art of Business Website Design
Your website is...
|
by: tracyyun |
last post by:
Dear forum friends,
With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each protocol has its own unique characteristics and advantages, but as a user who is planning to build a smart home system, I am a bit confused by the choice of these technologies. I'm particularly interested in Zigbee because I've heard it does some...
|
by: agi2029 |
last post by:
Let's talk about the concept of autonomous AI software engineers and no-code agents. These AIs are designed to manage the entire lifecycle of a software development project—planning, coding, testing, and deployment—without human intervention. Imagine an AI that can take a project description, break it down, write the code, debug it, and then launch it, all on its own....
Now, this would greatly impact the work of software developers. The idea...
|
by: conductexam |
last post by:
I have .net C# application in which I am extracting data from word file and save it in database particularly. To store word all data as it is I am converting the whole word file firstly in HTML and then checking html paragraph one by one.
At the time of converting from word file to html my equations which are in the word document file was convert into image.
Globals.ThisAddIn.Application.ActiveDocument.Select();...
|
by: TSSRALBI |
last post by:
Hello
I'm a network technician in training and I need your help.
I am currently learning how to create and manage the different types of VPNs and I have a question about LAN-to-LAN VPNs.
The last exercise I practiced was to create a LAN-to-LAN VPN between two Pfsense firewalls, by using IPSEC protocols.
I succeeded, with both firewalls in the same network. But I'm wondering if it's possible to do the same thing, with 2 Pfsense firewalls...
|
by: 6302768590 |
last post by:
Hai team
i want code for transfer the data from one system to another through IP address by using C# our system has to for every 5mins then we have to update the data what the data is updated we have to send another system
| | |
by: bsmnconsultancy |
last post by:
In today's digital era, a well-designed website is crucial for businesses looking to succeed. Whether you're a small business owner or a large corporation in Toronto, having a strong online presence can significantly impact your brand's success. BSMN Consultancy, a leader in Website Development in Toronto offers valuable insights into creating effective websites that not only look great but also perform exceptionally well. In this comprehensive...
| |
