We Keep Coding

Server's socket blocking if no newline detected but client's socket not

While setting up a TCP server-client connection, I realized that the server receive function hangs if the client does not send an '\n', but the client does not block if the sever doesn't. I tried searching for an explanation without finding a proper answer, so I came here to ask for your help.
I am using the same function to exchange data for both server and client, but I don't know why it works for one and doesn't for the other...
Here is my function in C#:
public bool sendToClient(int i, string msg)
{
try
{
(clientSockets.ElementAt(i)).mSocket.Send(Encoding.ASCII.GetBytes(msg));
}
catch(Exception e)
{
Console.WriteLine(e.Data.ToString());
return false;
}
return true;
}
private string getMessageFromConnection(Socket s)
{
byte[] buff;
string msg = "";
int k;
do
{
buff = new byte[100];
k = s.Receive(buff, 100, SocketFlags.None);
msg += Encoding.ASCII.GetString(buff, 0, k);
} while (k >= 100);
return msg;
}
The sockets are simple SOCK_STREAM ones, and the clientSockets is a list containing Client objects containing each client info including their socket.
I understand that one solution would be to detect a particular character to end the message, but I would like to know the reason behind it because I also had this issue using C.
Thanks in advance.

Your while loop continues only as long as you're reading exactly 100 bytes, and it seems that you intend to use that to detect the end of a message.
This will fail if the message is exactly 100 or any multitude of 100 bytes (in which case it will append a subsequent message to it).
But even worse - there is no guarantee that the socket will return 100 bytes, even if there is data still on its way. Receive does not wait until the underlying buffer has reached 100 bytes, it will return whatever it has available at that point.
You're going to have to either include a header that indicates the message length, or have a terminator character that indicates the end of the message.

Cannot get second message using ReceiveAsync() in C#

I got in trouble using ReceiveAsync().
I want to get messages from the Server.
The first message was received, however, i cannot get any message from the second.
I am still trying to find any solution, but i can't.
Part of my Client source is below :
public void Recieve_Completed(object sender, SocketAsyncEventArgs e)
{
Socket _client = (Socket)sender;
Msg _Msg = (Msg)e.UserToken;
_Msg.SetLength(e.Buffer);
_Msg.InitData();
if (_client.Connected && e.BytesTransferred > 0)
{
...
Do sth
...
_client.ReceiveAsync(e);
}
else //No Message
{
//Connection_Timer.Enabled = true;
}
}
Did I make any stupid mistake.
If then, plz let me know.
Thx in advance.

You are assuming that TCP is message-based. It is not. TCP offers you a stream of bytes. Reads can read any amount greater than zero. Your code has to deal with that fact.

TcpClient missing data

I am trying to write network part for my game in C# using System.Net.Sockets and TcpClient class.
Each update server is sending information to client.
All information is built into 2kb packets, so in 1 update 1-2-3-5-10 packets can be sent.
Client is checking information and if information has right format - then reading it.
Everything is working fine, until server starts trying to send too many packets.
When it happens client time to time is receiving packets with wrong data 1 of 20-50 packets usually.
For example, 1-2 packets for 1 update usually are received fine, 3-10 packets for update giving wrong data streams.
If I am starting several clients in 1 time, that should get same data streams from server - they get different numbers of success and fail data streams.
What am I doing wrong, and how can I evade this wrong data streams?
Am I just sending too much data in 1 ms and it is needed to send it over time?
This is the sending information:
TcpClient client;
public void SendData(byte[] b)
{
//Try to send the data. If an exception is thrown, disconnect the client
try
{
lock (client.GetStream())
{
client.GetStream().BeginWrite(b, 0, b.Length, null, null);
}
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
MessageBox.Show(ex.Message);
}
}
This is the receiving information:
byte[] readBuffer;
int byfferSize = 2048;
private void StartListening()
{
client.GetStream().BeginRead(readBuffer, 0, bufferSize, StreamReceived, null);
}
private void StreamReceived(IAsyncResult ar)
{
int bytesRead = 0;
try
{
lock (client.GetStream())
{
bytesRead = client.GetStream().EndRead(ar); // просмотр длины сообщения
}
}
catch (Exception ex)
{ MessageBox.Show(ex.Message); }
//An error happened that created bad data
if (bytesRead == 0)
{
Disconnect();
return;
}
//Create the byte array with the number of bytes read
byte[] data = new byte[bytesRead];
//Populate the array
for (int i = 0; i < bytesRead; i++)
data[i] = readBuffer[i];
//Listen for new data
StartListening();
//Call all delegates
if (DataReceived != null)
DataReceived(this, data);
}
It is main network code.

I don't know what you do with the data after you've received it, but it's quite possible that you're not reading all of the data from the connection. You have:
bytesRead = client.GetStream().EndRead(ar);
There's no guarantee that the number of bytes you've read are all of the bytes that the server sent. For example, the server could have sent 2,048 bytes, but when you called Read, there were only 1,024 bytes available. The rest of them are still "in transit." As the documentation for NetworkStream.Read says:
The Read operation reads as much data as is available, up to the number of bytes specified by the size parameter
You could be getting partial packets. If your DataReceived handlers assume that the data buffer contains a complete packet, then you're going to have problems.
To reliably read from a network stream, you need to know how much data you're supposed to read, or you need a record separator. Something has to make sure that if you're expecting a complete packet that you get a complete packet before you try to process it. Your code just checks to see if bytesRead is not 0. If it's anything else, you just pass it on. This is going to be a problem unless your DataReceived handlers know how to buffer partial packets.
On another note, you really don't need to lock the network stream. Unless you can have several threads reading from the same stream. And that would be disastrous. Ditch the lock. You don't need it.

TCP data occasionally received in wrong order and incomplete

I have created TCP Server application in Java, and a client application in C#. When i am sending data, the client sometimes receives data out of order, and sometimes parts miss entirely. Basically, the code i use in the server (java) looks like this (stripped):
ServerSocket welcomeSocket = new ServerSocket(port);
Socket connectionSocket = welcomeSocket.accept();
outputStream = new DataOutputStream(socket.getOutputStream()); //Create stream
outputStream.writeBytes(message + "\n");
outputStream.flush();
I use "\n" as a delimiter. On the client side (C#) i use the following code:
private const char Delimiter = '\n';
tcpclnt = new TcpClient();
tcpclnt.NoDelay = true;
tcpclnt.Client.DontFragment = true;
tcpclnt.Connect(ip, port);
//This function is executed in a separate thread
public void Receive()
{
try
{
stream = tcpclnt.GetStream();
streamreader = new StreamReader(stream);
this.Connected = true;
while (Connected)
{
string line = ReadLine(streamreader);
Console.WriteLine("Received data: " + line);
}
}
}
private string ReadLine(StreamReader reader)
{
bool finished = false;
string line = "";
while (finished == false)
{
int asciiNumber = reader.Read();
char character = Convert.ToChar(asciiNumber);
if (!character.Equals(Delimiter))
line += character;
else finished = true;
}
return line;
}
The code is not very complicated. However, the data sent from the server is not always received correctly in the client. As an example, I should receive the following two strings:
"5_8_1" and "6_LEVELDATA"
What i get (sometimes) however, is this: "5_8_61" and "_LEVELDATA"
Another example: "5_4_1" and "6_LEVELDATA" result in one single string: "5_6_LEVELDATA"
This seems like some small problem, but it does in fact pretty much ruin my application. I have read a lot of posts, but the only answers i have read are either "this shouldnt happen with TCP" or "send the length of the tcp message first" which would not help in any way in this case, because the problem isn't the data being split up in multiple packages, it simply isn't arriving in the right order, which is something TCP should do.
I am 100% sure the string is always complete before it is being sent by the Java application.
I really wonder what i'm doing wrong here. Is something messed up bad in my code? I would appreciate any help with this problem. Thanks in advance.

After trying Wireshark, it appears my problem existed in the server. Apparently every TCP-message was sent in a seperate thread. Thank you for all of your comments! My problem is solved now.

Are there well-known patterns for asynchronous network code in C#?

I recently wrote a quick-and-dirty proof-of-concept proxy server in C# as part of an effort to get a Java web application to communicate with a legacy VB6 application residing on another server. It's ridiculously simple:
The proxy server and clients both use the same message format; in the code I use a ProxyMessage class to represent both requests from clients and responses generated by the server:
public class ProxyMessage
{
int Length; // message length (not including the length bytes themselves)
string Body; // an XML string containing a request/response
// writes this message instance in the proper network format to stream
// (helper for response messages)
WriteToStream(Stream stream) { ... }
}
The messages are as simple as could be: the length of the body + the message body.
I have a separate ProxyClient class that represents a connection to a client. It handles all the interaction between the proxy and a single client.
What I'm wondering is are they are design patterns or best practices for simplifying the boilerplate code associated with asynchronous socket programming? For example, you need to take some care to manage the read buffer so that you don't accidentally lose bytes, and you need to keep track of how far along you are in the processing of the current message. In my current code, I do all of this work in my callback function for TcpClient.BeginRead, and manage the state of the buffer and the current message processing state with the help of a few instance variables.
The code for my callback function that I'm passing to BeginRead is below, along with the relevant instance variables for context. The code seems to work fine "as-is", but I'm wondering if it can be refactored a bit to make it clearer (or maybe it already is?).
private enum BufferStates
{
GetMessageLength,
GetMessageBody
}
// The read buffer. Initially 4 bytes because we are initially
// waiting to receive the message length (a 32-bit int) from the client
// on first connecting. By constraining the buffer length to exactly 4 bytes,
// we make the buffer management a bit simpler, because
// we don't have to worry about cases where the buffer might contain
// the message length plus a few bytes of the message body.
// Additional bytes will simply be buffered by the OS until we request them.
byte[] _buffer = new byte[4];
// A count of how many bytes read so far in a particular BufferState.
int _totalBytesRead = 0;
// The state of the our buffer processing. Initially, we want
// to read in the message length, as it's the first thing
// a client will send
BufferStates _bufferState = BufferStates.GetMessageLength;
// ...ADDITIONAL CODE OMITTED FOR BREVITY...
// This is called every time we receive data from
// the client.
private void ReadCallback(IAsyncResult ar)
{
try
{
int bytesRead = _tcpClient.GetStream().EndRead(ar);
if (bytesRead == 0)
{
// No more data/socket was closed.
this.Dispose();
return;
}
// The state passed to BeginRead is used to hold a ProxyMessage
// instance that we use to build to up the message
// as it arrives.
ProxyMessage message = (ProxyMessage)ar.AsyncState;
if(message == null)
message = new ProxyMessage();
switch (_bufferState)
{
case BufferStates.GetMessageLength:
_totalBytesRead += bytesRead;
// if we have the message length (a 32-bit int)
// read it in from the buffer, grow the buffer
// to fit the incoming message, and change
// state so that the next read will start appending
// bytes to the message body
if (_totalBytesRead == 4)
{
int length = BitConverter.ToInt32(_buffer, 0);
message.Length = length;
_totalBytesRead = 0;
_buffer = new byte[message.Length];
_bufferState = BufferStates.GetMessageBody;
}
break;
case BufferStates.GetMessageBody:
string bodySegment = Encoding.ASCII.GetString(_buffer, _totalBytesRead, bytesRead);
_totalBytesRead += bytesRead;
message.Body += bodySegment;
if (_totalBytesRead >= message.Length)
{
// Got a complete message.
// Notify anyone interested.
// Pass a response ProxyMessage object to
// with the event so that receivers of OnReceiveMessage
// can send a response back to the client after processing
// the request.
ProxyMessage response = new ProxyMessage();
OnReceiveMessage(this, new ProxyMessageEventArgs(message, response));
// Send the response to the client
response.WriteToStream(_tcpClient.GetStream());
// Re-initialize our state so that we're
// ready to receive additional requests...
message = new ProxyMessage();
_totalBytesRead = 0;
_buffer = new byte[4]; //message length is 32-bit int (4 bytes)
_bufferState = BufferStates.GetMessageLength;
}
break;
}
// Wait for more data...
_tcpClient.GetStream().BeginRead(_buffer, 0, _buffer.Length, this.ReadCallback, message);
}
catch
{
// do nothing
}
}
So far, my only real thought is to extract the buffer-related stuff into a separate MessageBuffer class and simply have my read callback append new bytes to it as they arrive. The MessageBuffer would then worry about things like the current BufferState and fire an event when it received a complete message, which the ProxyClient could then propagate further up to the main proxy server code, where the request can be processed.

I've had to overcome similar problems. Here's my solution (modified to fit your own example).
We create a wrapper around Stream (a superclass of NetworkStream, which is a superclass of TcpClient or whatever). It monitors reads. When some data is read, it is buffered. When we receive a length indicator (4 bytes) we check if we have a full message (4 bytes + message body length). When we do, we raise a MessageReceived event with the message body, and remove the message from the buffer. This technique automatically handles fragmented messages and multiple-messages-per-packet situations.
public class MessageStream : IMessageStream, IDisposable
{
public MessageStream(Stream stream)
{
if(stream == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("stream", "Stream must not be null");
if(!stream.CanWrite || !stream.CanRead)
throw new ArgumentException("Stream must be readable and writable", "stream");
this.Stream = stream;
this.readBuffer = new byte[512];
messageBuffer = new List<byte>();
stream.BeginRead(readBuffer, 0, readBuffer.Length, new AsyncCallback(ReadCallback), null);
}
// These belong to the ReadCallback thread only.
private byte[] readBuffer;
private List<byte> messageBuffer;
private void ReadCallback(IAsyncResult result)
{
int bytesRead = Stream.EndRead(result);
messageBuffer.AddRange(readBuffer.Take(bytesRead));
if(messageBuffer.Count >= 4)
{
int length = BitConverter.ToInt32(messageBuffer.Take(4).ToArray(), 0); // 4 bytes per int32
// Keep buffering until we get a full message.
if(messageBuffer.Count >= length + 4)
{
messageBuffer.Skip(4);
OnMessageReceived(new MessageEventArgs(messageBuffer.Take(length)));
messageBuffer.Skip(length);
}
}
// FIXME below is kinda hacky (I don't know the proper way of doing things...)
// Don't bother reading again. We don't have stream access.
if(disposed)
return;
try
{
Stream.BeginRead(readBuffer, 0, readBuffer.Length, new AsyncCallback(ReadCallback), null);
}
catch(ObjectDisposedException)
{
// DO NOTHING
// Ends read loop.
}
}
public Stream Stream
{
get;
private set;
}
public event EventHandler<MessageEventArgs> MessageReceived;
protected virtual void OnMessageReceived(MessageEventArgs e)
{
var messageReceived = MessageReceived;
if(messageReceived != null)
messageReceived(this, e);
}
public virtual void SendMessage(Message message)
{
// Have fun ...
}
// Dispose stuff here
}

I think the design you've used is fine that's roughly how I would and have done the same sort of thing. I don't think you'd gain much by refactoring into additional classes/structs and from what I've seen you'd actually make the solution more complex by doing so.
The only comment I'd have is as to whether the two reads where the first is always the messgae length and the second always being the body is robust enough. I'm always wary of approaches like that as if they somehow get out of sync due to an unforseen circumstance (such as the other end sending the wrong length) it's very difficult to recover. Instead I'd do a single read with a big buffer so that I always get all the available data from the network and then inspect the buffer to extract out complete messages. That way if things do go wrong the current buffer can just be thrown away to get things back to a clean state and only the current messages are lost rather than stopping the whole service.
Actually at the moment you would have a problem if you message body was big and arrived in two seperate receives and the next message in line sent it's length at the same time as the second half of the previous body. If that happened your message length would end up appended to the body of the previous message and you'd been in the situation as desecribed in the previous paragraph.

You can use yield return to automate the generation of a state machine for asynchronous callbacks. Jeffrey Richter promotes this technique through his AsyncEnumerator class, and I've played around with the idea here.

There's nothing wrong with the way you've done it. For me, though, I like to separate the receiving of the data from the processing of it, which is what you seem to be thinking with your proposed MessageBuffer class. I have discussed that in detail here.