Why am I getting this error?
SCTP Abort with reason Association retry count exceeded
It looks like that your association has been closed due to remote endpoint failure: either association retransmission counter reached 'Association.Max.Retrans' or there is no more active paths that can been used for data sending.
According to RFC 4960 chapter 8.1 the association should just move to closed state in this case and inform upper layer. RFC does not recommend sending ABORT chunk in this case, because you have communication issues anyway and it is unlikely that the ABORT chunk will be delivered.
Looks like the SCTP implementation you using prefers to send ABORT anyway. Protocol violation is a bit strange cause to use in such situation - remote endpoint has not violated the specification, there is just communication issue. However it shouldn't cause any issues for you.
I would recommend to study your wireshark trace a bit further and see if you have any retransmission prior to this ABORT chunk (you can do it quite easily with wireshark filters). If you find retransmissions - you need to investigate why remote end is not responding (maybe it has restarted, or something like that). If you don't find any retransmissions, you probably need to start looking what remote end was sending to the local side just before ABORT chunk was generated. Maybe you can find some anomalies there.
Related
I have a server application which runs on a Linux machine. I can connect this application from Windows/Linux machines and can send/recieve data. After a few hours, something occurs and I get following error on the client side.
On Windows: An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host
On Linux: Connection timed out
I have made a search on the web and found some posts which suggest to increase/decrease OS's keep alive time. However, it didin't work for me.
Can I found a soultion to this problem or should I simply try to reconnect to the server when the connection is forcibly closed?
EDIT: I have tracked the situation. I sent a data to the remote node and sent another data after waiting 5 hours. Sending side sent the first data, but whet the sender sent the second data it didn't response. TCP/IP stack of the sender repeated this 5 times by incrementing the times between retries. Finally, sender reset the connection. I can't be sure why this is happening (Maybe because of a firewall or NAT - see Section 2.4) but I applied two different approach to solve this problem:
Use TCP/IP keep alive using setsockopt (Section 4.2)
Make an application level keep alive. This is more reliable since the first approach is OS related.
It depends on what your application is supposed to do. A little more information and perhaps the code you use for listening and handling connections could be of help.
Regardless, technically a longer keep alive time, should prevent the OS from cutting you off. So perhaps it is something else causing the trouble.
Such a thing could be router malfunction or traffic causing your keep-alive packet to get lost.
If you aren't already testing it on a LAN (without heavy trafic) I suggest doing so.
It might also be due to how your socket is handled (which I can't determine from your question)
This article might help.
Non blocking socket with timeout
I'm not used to how connections are handled on Linux, but I expect the OS won't cut off a connection unnecessary.
You can re-establish connection as a recovery, but you need to take into account that not all disconnects are gentle, and therefore you could end up making recovery on a connection you actually wish to be closed.
Since it is TCP, it will do its best to make a gentle disconnect, but you can send a custom message telling the server or client not to re-establish the connection right before disconnecting. That way you be absolutely sure, despite that it should be unnecessary to do so.
I work on IOCP Server in windows. And i have to send buffer to all connected socket.
The buffer size is small - up to 10 bytes. When i get notification for each wsasend in GetQueuedCompletionStatus, is there guarantee that the buffer was sent in one piece by single wsasend? Or should i put additional code, that check if all 10 bytes was sent, and post another wsasend if necessary?
There is no guarantee but it's highly unlikely that a send that is less than a single operating system page size would partially fail.
Failures are more likely if you're sending a buffer that is more than a single operating system page size in length and if you're not actively managing how many outstanding operations you have and how many your system can support before running out of "non paged pool" or hitting the "I/O page lock limit"
It's only possible to recover from a partial failure if you never have any other sends pending on that connection.
I tend to check that the value is as expected in the completion handler and abort the connection with an RST if it's not. I've never had this code execute in production and I've been building lots of different kinds of IOCP based client and server systems for well over 10 years now.
I have a server application that receives some special TCP packet from a client and needs to react to it as soon as possible by sending an high-level ACK to the client (the TCP ACK won't suite my needs).
However, this server is really network intensive and sometimes the packet will take too long to be sent (like 200ms in a local network, when a simple server application can send it in less than 1ms).
Is there a way to mark this packet with a high-priority tag or something like that in Delphi? Or maybe with the Win32 API?
Thanks in advance.
EDIT
Thanks for all the answers so far. I'll add some details. My product has the following setup: there are several devices that are built upon vehicles with WIFI conectivity. When they arrive at the garage, those device connect to my server and start to transmit data.
Because of hardware limitations, I implemented a high-level ACK to make the device aware that the last packet arrived successfully (please, don't argue about this - the data may be broken even if I got a correct TCP ACK). However, if I use my server software, that communicates with a remote database, to issue this ACK, I get very long delay (>200ms). If I use an exclusive software to do this task, I get small latencies (<1ms). So, I was imagining if I could just tell Windows to send those special packets first, as it seems to me that this package is getting delayed so the database ones can get delivered.
That's the motivation behind my question.
EDIT 2
As requested: this is legacy software and I'm using the legacy dclsockets140.bpl package and Delphi 2010 (14.0.3593.25826).
IMO it is very difficult to realize this. there are a lot of equipment and software involved. first of all, if you communicate between 2 different OS's you got a latency. second, soft and hard firewalls, antiviruses, everything is filtering/delaying your package.
you can try also to 'hack' the system(this involve some very good knowledge on how the frames/segments are packed/send,flow control,congestion,etc), either by altering it from code, either by using some tools like http://half-open.com/ or others.
In short, passing MSG_OOB flag to the send function marks the data as "urgent". Detailed discussion about the OOB in the context of Windows Sockets implementation specifics is available here.
I am using TIdCmdTCPClient and TIdCmdTCPServer. Suddenly I find that I might like to have bi-directional communication.
What would be best? Should I possibly use some other components? If so, which? Or should I kludge and have the 'client' poll the 'server' to ask if it wishes to communciate anything?
This is a very small system. Two clients and ten servers, with a burst of one tarnscation every 30 to 60 seconds for a few minutes once a day, so overhead for polling is inconsequential.
I'm just woder if there is a 'correct' way.
Update: this really is an incredibly simple system. Very little traffic and all of it simple. All transmissions are an indication of even type an an optional single parameter.
<event type> [ <parameter>] e.g. "HERE_IS_SOME_DATA 42"
This can be sent in both directions, hover here is no "reply" as such. Just fire off a message (and hope that it got there)? Receive an Ack with no data? Non-catching of an exception indicates that message was successfully sent?)
Would it be possible (would it be overkill) to use two TIdCmdTCPServer?
Both TIdCmdTCPClient and TIdCmdTCPServer continuously poll their socket endpoints for inbound data during the lifetime of the connection. You do not have to do anything extra for that. So, as soon as a TIdCmdTCPClient connects to the TIdCmdTCPServer, both components will initially be in a reading state until one of them sends a command to the other.
Now, there is a problem with doing that - as soon as either component sends that first command, the receiving component will interpret it as a command and send back a reply, which the other component will interpret as a command and send back a reply, which will be interpretted as a command and send back a reply, and so on, causing an endless cycle of replies back and forth. For that reason, it is not wise to use TIdCmdTCPClient and TIdCmdTCPServer together. You should either use TIdTCPClient with TIdCmdTCPServer, or use TIdCmdTCPClient with TIdTCPServer. Depending on what exactly your protocol looks like, you may have to forgo using TIdCmdTCPClient and TIdCmdTCPServer altogether and just use TIdTCPClient with TIdTCPServer so you have more control over reading and writing on both ends. It is hard to answer with actual code without first knowing what the communication protocol should look like.
A single TCP socket connection can be used in two directions. The server can send data asynchronously to the client at any time. It is up to the client however to read the socket, for asynchronous processing this is done in a listener thread which reads from the socket and synchronizes incoming data operations with the main worker thread.
An example use case in the Indy components is the Telnet client component (TIdTelnet) which has a receive thread listening for server messages.
But you also asked about the 'correct' way - and then the answer depends on other factors such as network stability, guaranteed delivery and how to handle temporary server outages. In enterprise environments, one central messaging hub is preferred in many use cases, so that all parties connect only to this central server which is only responsible for reliable message delivery, and keeps messages until the recipient is available.
You can download the INDY 10 TCP server demo sample code here.
We have an application server developed with Delphi 2010 and Indy 10. This server receives more than 50 requests per second and it works well. But in some cases, it seems to me that Indy is very obscure. Their components are good, but sometimes I found myself digging into the source code only to understand a simple thing. Indy lacks on good documentation and good support.
The last thing that i came across was a big problem for me: I must detect when a client disconnects non gracefully (When the the client crashes or shutdown, for instance. Not telling the server that it will disconnect) and indy was not able to do that. If I want that, I will have to develop a algorithm like heartbeat, pooling or TCP keep-alive. I do not want to spend more time doing a, at least I think, component job. After a few study, I found out that this is not Indy's fault, but this is an issue of all blocking sockets components.
Now I am really thinking of changing the core of the Server to another good suite. I must admit I am tending to use a non-blocking socket. Based on that, I have some questions:
What do a benefit from changing from blocking to non-blocking sockets?
Will I be able to detect client disconnects (non gracefully)?
What component suite has the best product? By best product I mean: fast, good support, good tools and easy to implement.
I know this must be a subjective question, but I really want to hear that from you. My first question is the one I care most. I do not care if I have to pay 100, 500, 1000, 10000 dollars, but I want a complete solution. For now, I am thinking about Ip*works .
EDIT
I think some guys are not understand what I want. I don't want to create my own socket. I have been working with sockets for a long time and I am getting tired of it. Really.
And non-blocking sockets CAN detect client disconnects. That is a fact and it has good documentation all over the internet. A non-blocking socket checks the socket state for new incoming data all the time, and it makes possible to detect that the socket is not valid. This is not a heartbeat algorithm. A heartbeat algorithm is used on client side and it sends periodically packets (aka keep-alive) to the server to tells it is still alive.
EDIT
I am not make myself clear. Maybe because English is not my main language. I am not saying that it is possible to detect a dropped connection without trying to send or receiving data from a socket. What I am saying is that every non-blocking socket is able to do that because they constantly tries to read from the socket for new incoming data. Why is that so hard to understand? If you guys download and run ip*works demos, in special, the echoserver and echoclient ones (both use TCP) you can test by yourselves. I already tested it, and it works like I expected to do. Even if you use the old TCPSocketServer and TCPSocketClient in a non-blocking mode you will see what I meant.
"What do a benefit from changing from blocking to non-blocking sockets? Will I be able to detect client disconnects (non gracefully)?"
Just my two cents to get the ball rolling on this question - I'm not a socket EXPERT, but I do have a good deal of experience with them. If I'm mistaken, I'm sure someone will correct me... :-)
I assume that since you're running a server using blocking sockets with 50 connections per second, you have a threading mechanism in place to handle client requests. If so, you don't really stand to gain anything from non-blocking sockets. On the contrary - you will have to change your server logic to be event driven- based on events fired in your main thread from the non-blocking sockets, or use constant polling to know what your sockets are up to.
Non-blocking sockets can't detect clients disconnecting without notification any more than blocking sockets can - they don't have telepathic powers... The nature of the TCP/IP 'conversation' between client and server is the same - blocking and non-blocking is only with respect to your application's interaction with the socket connection conducting the 'conversation'.
If you need to purge dead connections, you need to implement a heartbeat or timeout mechanism on your socket (I've never seen a modern socket implementation that didn't support timeouts).
What do a benefit from changing from blocking to non-blocking sockets?
Increased speed, availability, and throughput (from my experience). I had an IndySockets client that was getting about 15 requests per second and when I went directly to asynchronous sockets the throughput increased to about 90 requests per second (on the same machine). In a separate benchmark test on a server at a data-center with a 30 Mbit connection I was able to get more than 300 requests per second.
Will I be able to detect client disconnects (non gracefully)?
That's one thing I haven't had to try yet, since all of my code has been on the client side.
What component suite has the best product? By best product I mean: fast, good support, good tools and easy to implement.
You can build your own socket client in a couple of days and it can be very robust and fast... much faster than most of the stuff I've seen "off the shelf". Feel free to take a look at my asynchronous socket client: http://codesprout.blogspot.com/2011/04/asynchronous-http-client.html
Update:
(Per Mikey's comments)
I'm asking you for a generic, technical explanation of how NBS increase throughput as opposed to a properly designed BS server.
Let's take a high load server as an example: say your server is supposed to handle 1000 connections at any given time, with blocking sockets you would have to create 1000 threads and even if they're mostly idle, the CPU will still spend a lot of time context switching. As the number of clients increases you will have to increase the number of threads in order to keep up and the CPU will inevitably increase the context switching. For every connection you establish with a blocking socket, you will incur the overhead of spawning of a new thread and you eventually you will incur the overhead of cleaning up after the thread. Of course, the first thing that comes to mind is: why not use the ThreadPool, you can reuse the threads and reduce the overhead of creating/cleaning-up of threads.
Here is how this is handled on Windows (hence the .NET connection): sure you could, but the first thing you'll notice with the .NET ThreadPool is that it has two types of threads and it's not a coincidence: user threads and I/O completion port threads. Asynchronous sockets use the IO completion ports which "allows a single thread to perform simultaneous I/O operations on different handles, or even simultaneous read and write operations on the same handle."(1) The I/O completion port threads are specifically designed to handle I/O in a much more efficient way than you would ever be able to achieve if you used the user threads in ThreadPool, unless you wrote your own kernel-mode driver.
"The completion port uses some special voodoo to make sure only a specific number of threads can run at once — if one thread blocks in kernel-mode, it will automatically start up another one."(2)
There are other advantages also: "in addition to the nonblocking advantage of the overlapped socket I/O, the other advantage is better performance because you save a buffer copy between the TCP stack buffer and the user buffer for each I/O call." (3)
I am using Indy and Synapse TCP libraries with good results for some years now, and did not find any showstoppers in them. I use the libraries in threads - client and server side, stability and performance was not a problem. (Six thousand request and response messages per second and more with the server running on the same system are typical.)
Blocking sockets are very useful if the protocol is more advanced than a simple 'send a string / receive a string'. Non-blocking sockets cause a higher coupling of message protocol handlers with the socket read / write logic, so I quickly moved away from non-blocking code.
No library can overcome the limitations of the TCP/IP protocol regarding detection of connection loss. Only trying to read or send data can tell wether the connection is still present.
In Windows, there is a third option which is overlapped I/O. Non-blocking sockets are essential a model using Windows messages developed to avoid single-threaded GUI apps to become "blocked" while waiting for data. A modern application IMHO would be better designed using threads and overlapped I/O.
See for example http://support.microsoft.com/kb/181611
Aahhrrgghh - the myth of being able to always detect "dropped" connections. If you pull the power on a machine with a client connection then the server cannot tell, without sending data, that the connection is "dead". The is through the design of the TCP protocol. Don't take my word for it - read this article (Detection of Half-Open (Dropped) TCP/IP Socket Connections).
This article explains the main differences between blocking and non-blocking:
Introduction to Indy, by Chad Z. Hower
Pros of Blocking
Easy to program - Blocking is very easy to program. All user code can
exist in one place, and in a
sequential order.
Easy to port to Unix - Since Unix uses blocking sockets, portable code
can be written easily. Indy uses this
fact to achieve its single source
solution.
Work well in threads - Since blocking sockets are sequential they
are inherently encapsulated and
therefore very easily used in threads.
Cons of Blocking
User Interface "Freeze" with clients - Blocking socket calls do not
return until they have accomplished
their task. When such calls are made
in the main thread of an application,
the application cannot process the
user interface messages. This causes
the User Interface to "freeze" because
the update, repaint and other messages
cannot be processed until the blocking
socket calls return control to the
applications message processing loop.
He also wrote:
Blocking is NOT Evil
Blocking sockets have been repeatedly
attacked with out warrant. Contrary to
popular belief, blocking sockets are
not evil.
It is not is an issue of all blocking sockets components that they are unable to detect a client disconnect. There is no technical advantage on the side of non-blocking components in this area.