We Keep Coding

Check if NamedPipeClientStream write is successful

Basically the title... I'd like to have same feedback on weather NamedPipeServerStream object successfully received a value. This is the starting code:
static void Main(string[] args){
Console.WriteLine("Client running!");
NamedPipeClientStream npc = new NamedPipeClientStream("somename");
npc.Connect();
// npc.WriteTimeout = 1000; does not work, says it is not supported for this stream
byte[] message = Encoding.UTF8.GetBytes("Message");
npc.Write(message);
int response = npc.ReadByte();
Console.WriteLine("response; "+response);
}
I've implemented a small echo message from the NamedPipeServerStream on every read. I imagine I could add some async timeout to check if npc.ReadByte(); did return a value in lets say 200ms. Similar to how TCP packets are ACKed.
Is there a better way of inspecting if namedPipeClientStream.Write() was successful?

I'd like to have same feedback on weather NamedPipeServerStream object successfully received a value
The only way to know for sure that the data you sent was received and successfully processed by the client at the remote endpoint, is for your own application protocol to include such acknowledgements.
As a general rule, you can assume that if your send operations are completing successfully, the connection remains viable and the remote endpoint is getting the data. If something happens to the connection, you'll eventually get an error while sending data.
However, this assumption only goes so far. Network I/O is buffered, usually at several levels. Any of your send operations almost certainly involve doing nothing more than placing the data in a local buffer for the network layer. The method call for the operation will return as soon as the data has been buffered, without regard for whether the remote endpoint has received it (and in fact, almost never will have by the time your call returns).
So if and when such a call throws an exception or otherwise reports an error, it's entirely possible that some of the previously sent data has also been lost in transit.
How best to address this possibility depends on what you're trying to do. But in general, you should not worry about it at all. It will typically not matter if a specific transmission has been received. As long as you can continue transmitting without error, the connection is fine, and asking for acknowledgement is just unnecessary overhead.
If you want to handle the case where an error occurs, invalidating the connection, forcing you to retry, and you want to make the broader operation resumable (e.g. you're streaming some data to the remote endpoint and want to ensure all of the data has been received, without having to resend data that has already been received), then you should build into your application protocol the ability to resume, where on reconnecting the remote endpoint reports the number of bytes it's received so far, or the most recent message ID, or whatever it is your application protocol would need to understand where it needs to start sending again.
See also this very closely-related question (arguably maybe even an actual duplicate…though it doesn't mention named pipes specifically, pretty much all network I/O will involve similar issues):
Does TcpClient write method guarantees the data are delivered to server?
There's a good answer there, as well as links to even more useful Q&A in that answer.

TcpClient: How do I close and reconnect it again?

Hello and thanks for your help.
This time I would like to ask about TcpClient.
I have a server program and I am writing a client program.
This client uses TcpClient. It starts by creating a new client
clientSocket=new TcpClient();
(By the way, can this cause exceptions? just in case I put it inside a try-catch but I am not sure if that is really necessary)
Anyway, later I enter a loop and inside this loop I connect to the server
clientSocket.Connect("xx.xx.xx.xx",port);
Then I create a NetworkStream with
clientStream=clientSocket.GetStream();
and then start waiting for data from the server through Read. I know this is blocking so I also set a ReadTimeOut (say 1 second)
Anyway, so far so good.
Later if I don't receive anything from the server, I attempt to send something to it. If this keeps happening for say 3 times I want to close the connection and reconnect to the server again
(notice that a whole different problem is when the server somehow is down, cause that causes other kinds of errors in the client-perhaps I will ask about that later)
So, what do I do?
if(clientSocket.Connected)
{
Console.WriteLine("Closing the socket");
clientSocket.Close();
}
I close the socket.
The loop is finished so I go again to the beginning and try to connect to the server.
clientSocket.Connect("xx.xx.xx.xx",port);
However this causes an error(an unhandled exception actually) "Can not access a disposed object"
So my question is How can I close and reconnect to the server again??
Thanks again for any help

A TcpClient instance can only be used to connect once. You can simply instantiate a new TcpClient, rather than trying to re-open a closed one.

As explained in the other answer, a TcpClient object can only be connected once. If you want to reconnect to the server, you have to create a new TcpClient object and call Connect() again.
That said, you have a number of apparent misconceptions in your question:
First and most important, you should not use ReceiveTimeout if you have any intention whatsoever of trying to use the TcpClient object again, e.g. to send some data to the server. Once the timeout period has expired, the underlying socket is no longer usable.If you want to periodically send data to the server when the server hasn't sent data to you, you should use asynchronous I/O (which you should do anyway, in spite of the learning curve) and use a regular timer object to keep track of how long it's been since you received data from the server.
The TcpClient constructor certainly can throw an exception. At the very least, any attempt to new a reference type object could throw OutOfMemoryException, and in the case of TcpClient, it ultimately tries to create a native socket handle, which could also fail.While all I/O objects and methods can throw exceptions, you should only ever catch exceptions that you have a way to handle gracefully. So before you add a try/catch block to your code, decide what it is you want to do in the case of an exception that will ensure that your code doesn't corrupt any data and continues to operate correctly. It is generally not possible to gracefully handle OutOfMemoryException (and impractical to protect all uses of new in any case), but you certainly can catch SocketException, which could be thrown by the constructor. If that exception is thrown, you should immediately abandon the attempt to create and use TcpClient, and report the error the user so that they can attempt to correct whatever problem prevented the socket's creation.
If your server is expected to be sending you data, and you don't receive it, then closing the connection and retrying is unlikely to improve the situation. That will only cause additional load on the server, making it even more likely it will fail to respond. Likewise sending the same data over and over. You should your request once, wait as long as is practical for a response from the server, and if you get no response within the desired time, report the error to the user and let them decide what to do next.Note that in this case, you could use the ReceiveTimeout property, because all you're going to do if you don't get a response in time is abandon the connection, which is fine.

Very simple:
client.Close();
client = new TcpClient();
client.Connect(host, port);

Self-healing SslStream

I'm writing a service that needs to maintain a long running SSL connection to a remote server. I need this server to be self-healing, that is if it's disconnected for any reason then the next time it's written to it will reconnect. I've tried this:
bool isConnected = client.Connected && client.Client.Poll(0, SelectMode.SelectWrite) && stream.CanWrite;
if (!isConnected )
{
this.connected = false;
GetConnection();
}
stream.Write(bytes, 0, bytes.Length);
stream.Flush();
But I find it doesn't act as I would expect it. If I simulate a network outage by disabling my wifi, I'm still able to write to the stream with stream.Write() for approximately 20 seconds. Then next time I try to write to it, none of client.Connected, client.Client.Poll(), or stream.CanWrite() return false, but when I go to write to the stream I get a socket exception. Finally, if I try to recreate the connection, I get this exception: An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host.
I would appreciate any help create a long running SslStream that can withstand network failure. Thanks!

From a 10.000 feet point of view:
The reason you can still write to the stream after shutting down your wifi is because there is a network buffer that is holding the data for transmission, stream.Write/stream.Flush success means the network interface (TCP/IP stack) has accepted the data and has been buffered for transmission, not that the data has reach its target.
It takes time to the TCP/IP Stack to notice a full media disconnection, (connection lost/reset) because even if there is no physical link TCP/IP will see this as a temporary issue in the network and will keep retrying for a while (the network could be dropping packets at some point and the stack will keep retrying)
If you think about this in the reverse way, you won't like all your programs to fail if there is a network hiccup (this happen too often on internet), so TCP/IP takes its time to notify to the app layer that the connection has become invalid (after retry several times and wait a reasonable amount of time)
You can always reconnect to the server when the SslStream fails and continue sending data, although you will find is not as easy as this because there are several scenarios where you send and data is not received by server and others where server receive the data and you do not receive any ACK from server at all... So depending on your needs, self-healing alone could be not enough.
Self-Healing is simple to implement, data consistency and reliability is harder and usually requires the server to be ready to support some kind of reliable messaging mechanism to ensure all data has been sent and received.

The underlying protocol for SSL is TCP. TCP will usually only send data if the application wants it to deliver data, or if it needs to reply to data received from the other side by sending an ACK. This means, that a broken connection like a lost link will not be noticed until you are trying to send any data. But you will not notice immediatly, because:
A write to the socket will only deliver the data to the OS kernel and return success if this delivery was successful.
The kernel will then try to deliver the data to the peer and will wait for the ACK from the client.
If it does not get any ACK it will retry again to deliver the data and only after some unsuccessful retries the kernel will declare the connection broken.
Only after the connection is marked broken by the kernel the next write or read will return the error from kernel to user space, like with returning EPIPE when doing a write.
This means, if you want to know up-front if the connection is still alive you have to make sure that you get a regular data exchange on the connection. At the TCP level you might set TCP_KEEPALIVE, but this might use an interval of some hours between exchanges packets. At the SSL layer you might try to use the infamous heartbeat extension, but most peers will not understand it. The last choice is to implement some kind of heartbeat in your own application.
As for the self healing: When reconnecting you get a new TCP connection and you also need to do a full SSL handshake, because the last SSL connection was not cleanly closed and thus cannot be resumed. The server has no idea that this new connection is just a continuation of the old one so you have to implement some kind of meta-connection spanning multiple TCP connections inside your application layer on both client and server. Inside this meta-connection you need to have your own data tracking to detect, which data are really accepted from the peer and which were only send but never explicitly accepted because the connection broke. Sound like a kind of TCP on top of TCP.

TcpClient.BeginRead/TcpClient.EndRead doesn't throw exception when internet disconnected

I'm using TcpListener to accept & read from TcpClient.
The problem is that when reading from a TcpClient, TcpClient.BeginRead / TcpClient.EndRead doesn't throw exception when the internet is disconnected. It throws exception only if client's process is ended or connection is closed by server or client.

The system generally has no chance to know that connection is broken. The only reliable way to know this is to attempt to send something. When you do this, the packet is sent, then lost or bounced and your system knows that connection is no longer available, and reports the problem back to you by error code or exception (depending on environment). Reading is usually not enough cause reading only checks the state of input buffer, and doesn't send the packet to the remote side.

As far as I know, low level sockets doesn't notify you in such cases. You should provide your own time out implementation or ping the server periodically.

If you want to know about when the network status changes you can subscribe to the System.Net.NetworkInformation.NetworkChange.NetworkAvailabilityChanged event. This is not specific to the internet, just the local network.
EDIT
Sorry, I misunderstood. The concept of "connected" really doesn't exist the more you think about it. This post does a great job of going into more details about that. There is a Connected property on the TcpClient but MSDN says (emphasis mine):
Because the Connected property only
reflects the state of the connection
as of the most recent operation, you
should attempt to send or receive a
message to determine the current
state. After the message send fails,
this property no longer returns true.
Note that this behavior is by design.
You cannot reliably test the state of
the connection because, in the time
between the test and a send/receive,
the connection could have been lost.
Your code should assume the socket is
connected, and gracefully handle
failed transmissions.
Basically the only way to check for a client connection it to try to send data. If it goes through, you're connected. If it fails, you're not.

I don't think you'd want BeginRead and EndRead throwing exceptions as these should be use in multi threaded scenarios.
You probably need to implement some other mechanism to respond to the dropping of a connection.

Java Socket Disconnect Reporting vs. C# Disconnection

in C# when a sockets connection is terminated the other node is informed of this before terminating the link thus the remaning node can update the connection status.
in Java when i terminate a communication link the other node keeps reporting the connection as valid.
do i need to implement a read cycle (makes sense) that reports the connection as lost when it recieves a -1 during read (in C# this is 0 i think)?
thank you for your insight.
EDIT: thanks to you both. as i suspected and mentioned in my post that an additional check is required to confirm the connected state of a connection.

If the remote side of the connection goes away, normally you'll get an IOException from the InputStream/InputChannel if the disconnection can be detected. If it can't detect the disconnect an IOException will eventually be thrown when the socket read times out. The length of time it waits for a timeout can be adjusted using Socket.setSoTimeout().

In java, you find out about the other end of the socket being closed only when you read/write to/from the socket, or query the input stream state (e.g. InputStream.available()). I don't think there is any asynchronous notification that the other end is closed.
How are you testing that the socket is still open?
You can poll the InputStream.available() method and if that returns -1, you know the socket is closed. Of course, you can also read data, if that fits with your usage.
See InputStream.available()