When reading data in chunks of say, 1024, how do I continue to read from a socket that receives a message bigger than 1024 bytes until there is no data left? Should I just use BeginReceive to read a packet's length prefix only, and then once that is retrieved, use Receive() (in the async thread) to read the rest of the packet? Or is there another way?
edit:
I thought Jon Skeet's link had the solution, but there is a bit of a speedbump with that code. The code I used is:
public class StateObject
{
public Socket workSocket = null;
public const int BUFFER_SIZE = 1024;
public byte[] buffer = new byte[BUFFER_SIZE];
public StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
}
public static void Read_Callback(IAsyncResult ar)
{
StateObject so = (StateObject) ar.AsyncState;
Socket s = so.workSocket;
int read = s.EndReceive(ar);
if (read > 0)
{
so.sb.Append(Encoding.ASCII.GetString(so.buffer, 0, read));
if (read == StateObject.BUFFER_SIZE)
{
s.BeginReceive(so.buffer, 0, StateObject.BUFFER_SIZE, 0,
new AyncCallback(Async_Send_Receive.Read_Callback), so);
return;
}
}
if (so.sb.Length > 0)
{
//All of the data has been read, so displays it to the console
string strContent;
strContent = so.sb.ToString();
Console.WriteLine(String.Format("Read {0} byte from socket" +
"data = {1} ", strContent.Length, strContent));
}
s.Close();
}
Now this corrected works fine most of the time, but it fails when the packet's size is a multiple of the buffer. The reason for this is if the buffer gets filled on a read it is assumed there is more data; but the same problem happens as before. A 2 byte buffer, for exmaple, gets filled twice on a 4 byte packet, and assumes there is more data. It then blocks because there is nothing left to read. The problem is that the receive function doesn't know when the end of the packet is.
This got me thinking to two possible solutions: I could either have an end-of-packet delimiter or I could read the packet header to find the length and then receive exactly that amount (as I originally suggested).
There's problems with each of these, though. I don't like the idea of using a delimiter, as a user could somehow work that into a packet in an input string from the app and screw it up. It also just seems kinda sloppy to me.
The length header sounds ok, but I'm planning on using protocol buffers - I don't know the format of the data. Is there a length header? How many bytes is it? Would this be something I implement myself? Etc..
What should I do?
No - call BeginReceive again from the callback handler, until EndReceive returns 0. Basically, you should keep on receiving asynchronously, assuming you want the fullest benefit of asynchronous IO.
If you look at the MSDN page for Socket.BeginReceive you'll see an example of this. (Admittedly it's not as easy to follow as it might be.)
Dang. I'm hesitant to even reply to this given the dignitaries that have already weighed in, but here goes. Be gentle, O Great Ones!
Without having the benefit of reading Marc's blog (it's blocked here due the corporate internet policy), I'm going to offer "another way."
The trick, in my mind, is to separate the receipt of the data from the processing of that data.
I use a StateObject class defined like this. It differs from the MSDN StateObject implementation in that it does not include the StringBuilder object, the BUFFER_SIZE constant is private, and it includes a constructor for convenience.
public class StateObject
{
private const int BUFFER_SIZE = 65535;
public byte[] Buffer = new byte[BUFFER_SIZE];
public readonly Socket WorkSocket = null;
public StateObject(Socket workSocket)
{
WorkSocket = workSocket;
}
}
I also have a Packet class that is simply a wrapper around a buffer and a timestamp.
public class Packet
{
public readonly byte[] Buffer;
public readonly DateTime Timestamp;
public Packet(DateTime timestamp, byte[] buffer, int size)
{
Timestamp = timestamp;
Buffer = new byte[size];
System.Buffer.BlockCopy(buffer, 0, Buffer, 0, size);
}
}
My ReceiveCallback() function looks like this.
public static ManualResetEvent PacketReceived = new ManualResetEvent(false);
public static List<Packet> PacketList = new List<Packet>();
public static object SyncRoot = new object();
public static void ReceiveCallback(IAsyncResult ar)
{
try {
StateObject so = (StateObject)ar.AsyncState;
int read = so.WorkSocket.EndReceive(ar);
if (read > 0) {
Packet packet = new Packet(DateTime.Now, so.Buffer, read);
lock (SyncRoot) {
PacketList.Add(packet);
}
PacketReceived.Set();
}
so.WorkSocket.BeginReceive(so.Buffer, 0, so.Buffer.Length, 0, ReceiveCallback, so);
} catch (ObjectDisposedException) {
// Handle the socket being closed with an async receive pending
} catch (Exception e) {
// Handle all other exceptions
}
}
Notice that this implementation does absolutely no processing of the received data, nor does it have any expections as to how many bytes are supposed to have been received. It simply receives whatever data happens to be on the socket (up to 65535 bytes) and stores that data in the packet list, and then it immediately queues up another asynchronous receive.
Since processing no longer occurs in the thread that handles each asynchronous receive, the data will obviously be processed by a different thread, which is why the Add() operation is synchronized via the lock statement. In addition, the processing thread (whether it is the main thread or some other dedicated thread) needs to know when there is data to process. To do this, I usually use a ManualResetEvent, which is what I've shown above.
Here is how the processing works.
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Thread t = new Thread(
delegate() {
List<Packet> packets;
while (true) {
PacketReceived.WaitOne();
PacketReceived.Reset();
lock (SyncRoot) {
packets = PacketList;
PacketList = new List<Packet>();
}
foreach (Packet packet in packets) {
// Process the packet
}
}
}
);
t.IsBackground = true;
t.Name = "Data Processing Thread";
t.Start();
}
That's the basic infrastructure I use for all of my socket communication. It provides a nice separation between the receipt of the data and the processing of that data.
As to the other question you had, it is important to remember with this approach that each Packet instance does not necessarily represent a complete message within the context of your application. A Packet instance might contain a partial message, a single message, or multiple messages, and your messages might span multiple Packet instances. I've addressed how to know when you've received a full message in the related question you posted here.
You would read the length prefix first. Once you have that, you would just keep reading the bytes in blocks (and you can do this async, as you surmised) until you have exhausted the number of bytes you know are coming in off the wire.
Note that at some point, when reading the last block you won't want to read the full 1024 bytes, depending on what the length-prefix says the total is, and how many bytes you have read.
Also I troubled same problem.
When I tested several times, I found that sometimes multiple BeginReceive - EndReceive makes packet loss. (This loop was ended improperly)
In my case, I used two solution.
First, I defined the enough packet size to make only 1 time BeginReceive() ~ EndReceive();
Second, When I receive large size of data, I used NetworkStream.Read() instead of BeginReceive() - EndReceive().
Asynchronous socket is not easy to use, and it need a lot of understanding about socket.
For info (general Begin/End usage), you might want to see this blog post; this approach is working OK for me, and saving much pain...
There seems to be a lot of confusion surrounding this. The examples on MSDN's site for async socket communication using TCP are misleading and not well explained. The EndReceive call will indeed block if the message size is an exact multiple of the receive buffer. This will cause you to never get your message and the application to hang.
Just to clear things up - You MUST provide your own delimiter for data if you are using TCP. Read the following (this is from a VERY reliable source).
The Need For Application Data
Delimiting
The other impact of TCP treating
incoming data as a stream is that data
received by an application using TCP
is unstructured. For transmission, a
stream of data goes into TCP on one
device, and on reception, a stream of
data goes back to the application on
the receiving device. Even though the
stream is broken into segments for
transmission by TCP, these segments
are TCP-level details that are hidden
from the application. So, when a
device wants to send multiple pieces
of data, TCP provides no mechanism for
indicating where the “dividing line”
is between the pieces, since TCP
doesn't examine the meaning of the
data at all. The application must
provide a means for doing this.
Consider for example an application
that is sending database records. It
needs to transmit record #579 from the
Employees database table, followed by
record #581 and record #611. It sends
these records to TCP, which treats
them all collectively as a stream of
bytes. TCP will package these bytes
into segments, but in a manner the
application cannot predict. It is
possible that each will end up in a
different segment, but more likely
they will all be in one segment, or
part of each will end up in different
segments, depending on their length.
The records themselves must have some
sort of explicit markers so the
receiving device can tell where one
record ends and the next starts.
Source: http://www.tcpipguide.com/free/t_TCPDataHandlingandProcessingStreamsSegmentsandSequ-3.htm
Most examples I see online for using EndReceive are wrong or misleading. It usually causes no problems in the examples because only one predefined message is sent and then the connection is closed.
This a very old topic, but I got here looking for something else and found this:
Now this corrected works fine most of the time, but it fails when the packet's size is a multiple of the buffer. The reason for this is if the buffer gets filled on a read it is assumed there is more data; but the same problem happens as before. A 2 byte buffer, for exmaple, gets filled twice on a 4 byte packet, and assumes there is more data. It then blocks because there is nothing left to read. The problem is that the receive function doesn't know when the end of the packet is.
I had this same problem, and since none of the replies seems to solve this, the way I did it was using Socket.Available
public static void Read_Callback(IAsyncResult ar)
{
StateObject so = (StateObject) ar.AsyncState;
Socket s = so.workSocket;
int read = s.EndReceive(ar);
if (read > 0)
{
so.sb.Append(Encoding.ASCII.GetString(so.buffer, 0, read));
if (s.Available == 0)
{
// All data received, process it as you wish
}
}
// Listen for more data
s.BeginReceive(so.buffer, 0, StateObject.BUFFER_SIZE, 0,
new AyncCallback(Async_Send_Receive.Read_Callback), so);
}
Hope this helps others, SO have helped me many times, thank you all!
Related
In my "client" i have the following piece of code:
socket.Send(ASCIIEncoding.UTF8.GetBytes("Test0"), SocketFlags.None);
socket.Send(ASCIIEncoding.UTF8.GetBytes("Test1"), SocketFlags.None);
socket.Send(ASCIIEncoding.UTF8.GetBytes("Test2"), SocketFlags.None);
In my "server" i have the following:
public void ReadCallback(IAsyncResult ar)
{
StateObject state = (StateObject)ar.AsyncState;
Socket handler = state.WorkSocket;
int read = handler.EndReceive(ar);
if (read > 0)
{
string aux = Encoding.ASCII.GetString(state.buffer, 0, read);
//Rest of the code...
My problem is: aux is "Test0Test1Test2"... I was expecting that my ReadCallback would be called 3 times, one for each send... but its being called only once... what do i have to do to make the readcallback behave as i expected?
You seem to be using a stream-type socket (e.g. TCP as opposed to UDP).
Stream sockets are streams - the receiver can't necessarily tell whether the message was sent with multiple sends or in a single send.
If you need messages to be separated you need to either use a packet-oriented or message-oriented protocol or implement your own method of showing where messages begin and end.
I'll just echo what Ben said, and try to add a tiny bit of additional info. I ran into the same situation 5-6 years ago, and did as much reasearch as I could, and concluded that "that's the way it is". Here's the only "reference" I have that more-or-less confirms that:
http://www.xtremevbtalk.com/archive/index.php/t-204348.html
So what I did was prefix each packet with the length of the packet, and "parse" the received packets at the other end.
I was using a TCPclient socket type and had this problem. It has to do with the Nagle algorithm. I was able to solve the problem by setting the NoDelay property to true, which allows the data to be sent immediately even if the buffer is not yet full.
Edit: After reading the question again, I am not sure you have the same problem that I did. I was sending commands to a device then reading response data. Is this what you are trying to do, or are you trying to see what was sent?
This is my first question posted on this forum, and I'm a beginner in c# world , so this is kind of exciting for me, but I'm facing some issues with sending a large amount of data through sockets so this is more details about my problem:
I'm sending a binary image of 5 Mo through a TCP socket, at the receiving part I'm saving the result(data received ) and getting only 1.5 Mo ==> data has been lost (I compared the original and the resulting file and it showed me the missed parts)
this is the code I use:
private void senduimage_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
if (!user.clientSocket_NewSocket.Connected)
{
Socket clientSocket_NewSocket = new Socket(AddressFamily.InterNetwork, SocketType.Stream, ProtocolType.Tcp);
user.clientSocket_NewSocket = clientSocket_NewSocket;
System.IAsyncResult _NewSocket = user.clientSocket_NewSocket.BeginConnect(ip_address, NewSocket.Transceiver_TCP_Port, null, null);
bool successNewSocket = _NewSocket.AsyncWaitHandle.WaitOne(2000, true);
}
byte[] outStream = System.Text.Encoding.ASCII.GetBytes(Uimage_Data);
user.clientSocket_NewSocket.Send(outStream);
}
In forums they say to divide data into chunks, is this a solution, if so how can I do this, I've tried but it didn't work!
There are lots of different solutions but chunking is usually a good solution, you can either do this blindly where you keep filling your temporary buffer and then putting it into some stateful buffer until you hit some arbitrary token or the buffer is not completely full, or you can adhere to some sort of contract per tcp message (a message being the overall data to recieve).
If you were to look at doing some sort of contract then do something like the first N bytes of a message is the descriptor, which you could make as big or as small as you want, but your temp buffer will ONLY read this size up front from the stream.
A typical header could be something like:
public struct StreamHeader // 5 bytes
{
public byte MessageType {get;set;} // 1 byte
public int MessageSize {get;set;} // 4 bytes
}
So you would read that in then if its small enough allocate the full message size to the temp buffer and read it all in, or if you deem it too big chunk it into sections and keep reading until the total bytes you have received match the MessageSize portion of your header structure.
Probably you haven't read the documentation on socket usage in C#. (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms145160.aspx)
The internal buffer can not store all the data you provided to send methode. A possible solution to your problem can be is like you said to divide your data into chunks.
int totalBytesToSend = outstream.length; int bytesSend = 0;
while(bytesSend < totalBytesToSend )
bytesSend+= user.clientSocket_NewSocket.Send(outStream, bytesSend, totalBytesToSend - bytesSend,...);
I suspect that one of your problems is that you are not calling EndConnect. From the MSDN documentation:
The asynchronous BeginConnect operation must be completed by calling the EndConnect method.
Also, the wait:-
bool successNewSocket = _NewSocket.AsyncWaitHandle.WaitOne(2000, true);
is probably always false as there is nothing setting the event to the signaled state. Usually, you would specify a callback function to the BeginConnect function and in the callback you'd call EndConnect and set the state of the event to signaled. See the example code on this MSDN page.
UPDATE
I think I see another problem:-
byte[] outStream = System.Text.Encoding.ASCII.GetBytes(Uimage_Data);
I don't know what type Uimage_Data but I really don't think you want to convert it to ASCII. A zero in the data may signal an end of data byte (or maybe a 26 or someother ASCII code). The point is, the encoding process is likely to be changing the data.
Can you provide the type for the Uimage_Data object?
Most likely the problem is that you are closing the client-side socket before all the data has been transmitted to the server, and it is therefore getting discarded.
By default when you close a socket, all untransmitted data (sitting in the operating system buffers) is discarded. There are a few solutions:
[1] Set SO_LINGER (see http://developerweb.net/viewtopic.php?id=2982)
[2] Get the server to send an acknowledgement to the client, and don't close the client-side socket until you receive it.
[3] Wait until the output buffer is empty on the client side before closing the socket (test using getsocketopt SO_SND_BUF - I'm not sure of the syntax on c#).
Also you really should be testing the return value of Send(). Although in theory it should block until it sends all the data, I would want to actually verify that and at least print an error message if there is a mismatch.
I am totally confused right now.
Edit: Okay, nevermind. The Python socket as well is starting to do it now.
Edit 2: Well, not quite sure if this is causing high CPU usage, but something randomly is. Is there an efficient way to figure out what is causing spikes in the usage? This project is a bit large and has various threads.
I have an asynchronous server that listens and waits for incoming connections, then keeps them alive and waits for the socket to flush and give the server data. It is only closed when the user wants the socket to be closed.
However, whenever I let a socket & stream stay connected, it starts to go haywire and starts sending empty data on an endless loop... it may take anywhere from 15 seconds to over a minute before it starts going wack. If I let it go for a really long time, it starts to cause really high CPU usage.
Aside from the high CPU usage, oddly enough, everything works as it should; messages are sent & received fine.
This is my read callback function:
protected void ReadCallback(IAsyncResult ar)
{
StateObject state = (StateObject)ar.AsyncState;
Socket handler = state.SocketHandle;
try
{
int bytesRead = (state.BytesRead += handler.EndReceive(ar)), offset = 0;
string line = m_Encoder.GetString(state.Buffer, 0, bytesRead);
if ( state.Buddy != null )
Console.WriteLine(state.Buddy.Address);
if (bytesRead > 0)
{
Console.WriteLine("!!!");
/* A complete request? */
if (line.EndsWith("\n") || line.EndsWith("\x00"))
{
string[] lines = line.Split('\n'); // ... *facepalm*
foreach (string ln in lines)
this.MessageReceieved(ln, state);
state.Buffer = new byte[StateObject.BUFFER_SIZE];
state.BytesRead = 0; // reset
}
/* Incomplete; resize the array to accommodate more data... */
else
{
offset = bytesRead;
Array.Resize<byte>(ref state.Buffer, bytesRead + StateObject.BUFFER_SIZE);
}
}
if (handler != null && handler.Connected )
handler.BeginReceive(state.Buffer, offset, state.Buffer.Length - offset, SocketFlags.None, new AsyncCallback(ReadCallback), state);
}
catch (SocketException)
{
if (state.Buddy != null)
state.Buddy.Kill();
else
handler.Close();
}
}
I know this is somehow caused by calling BeginReceive, but I don't know how else to keep the connection alive.
There is nothing in that code that can make it go haywire.
I do see some problems though.
Connection detection
No need to check if the socket is connected. You can detect disconnections in two ways in the receive callback:
Zero bytes is returned by EndReceive
An exception is being thrown.
I would recommend that the first thing you do after EndReceive is to check the return value and handle disconnect accordingly. It makes the code clearer.
Your code will currently do nothing if 0 bytes are received. The handler will just stop receiving and still think that the connection is open.
Buffer handling
Your buffer handling is very inneffecient. Do not resize the buffer every time. It will slow your server down a lot. Allocate a large buffer from start.
String handling
Don't build a string every time you receive something. Check inside the byte buffer after new line or null instead. THEN build a string, and only make it as large as needed. You might receive more bytes that just a message (for instance one and a half message)
From outside SerialPort object, it seems to make no difference what the size of the write buffer is, and whether or not it is full.
Using synchronous writing, the write method blocks until all the data has been sent and the buffer is empty.
Using async writing, the data is queued and the program continues on going. The callback method is not called until the write operation is completed and the data is out of the buffer.
The behavior of the serialport object seems to be the same regardless of how much data is in the buffer and whether or not the buffer is full. No errors seem to happen when the write buffer is full.
So, why be able to check BytesToWrite and WriteBufferSize at all? Is there any way that SerialPort behaves differently when the write buffer is full?
Buffers are a mechanism designed to allow whoever processes the buffer to do it in their own way, at their own time.
When i send data, i want it to be pushed at the maximal rate of the port, but i don't want to busywait on the port and wait for each byte to be sent before i push the next one. So you have a processing buffer that feeds the hardware, and can be passed in chunks.
As for the why you'd want to check the BytesToWrite - you are often interested to know if all your data was sent before moving on to the next thing you want to do, you might expect a response after a given period of time, you might want to know what the actual transfer rate is etc'.
The C# SerialPort.BytesToWrite property corresponds to the unmanaged Win32 COMSTAT.cbOutQue field which is described as:
The number of bytes of user data remaining to be transmitted for all write operations. This value will be zero for a nonoverlapped write.
This seems to suggest you could observe the write buffer being consumed as it is sent with async writing before the write complete callback is called.
I wanted to create a test utility that constantly sends out 0xAA out the serial port, with no gaps, forever. I don't care about RX.
I used a timer to keep the buffer full, and monitored BytesToWrite to wait below it was below threshold, before I wrote more data into the buffer.
I could have alternatively not used a timer, but refreshed the serial port in the AsyncCallback, but I wanted to do it this way for fun. You can view the label11 to see the buffer fill and empty.
Note you can get away with BeginWrite without EndWrite for a short time, but eventually you will run out resources. I am basically just putting in a dummy EndWrite.
private void checkBox2_CheckedChanged(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
timerFill.Enabled = checkBox2.Checked;
}
private void timerFill_Tick(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
GenerateSquareWave();
}
int const bufferSize = 256;
void GenerateSquareWave()
{
int k = serialPort1.BytesToWrite;
label11.Text = k.ToString();
if (k < bufferSize)
{
byte[] data = new byte[bufferSize];
for (int i = 0; i < bufferSize; i++)
{
data[i] = 0xAA;
}
serialPort1.BaseStream.BeginWrite(data, 0, data.Length, new AsyncCallback((IAsyncResult ar) => serialPort1.BaseStream.EndWrite(ar)), null);
}
}
I'm currently in the process of developing a C# Socket server that can accept multiple connections from multiple client computers. The objective of the server is to allow clients to "subscribe" and "un-subscribe" from server events.
So far I've taken a jolly good look over here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/5w7b7x5f(v=VS.100).aspx and http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/fx6588te.aspx for ideas.
All the messages I send are encrypted, so I take the string message that I wish to send, convert it into a byte[] array and then encrypt the data before pre-pending the message length to the data and sending it out over the connection.
One thing that strikes me as an issue is this: on the receiving end it seems possible that Socket.EndReceive() (or the associated callback) could return when only half of the message has been received. Is there an easy way to ensure each message is received "complete" and only one message at a time?
EDIT: For example, I take it .NET / Windows sockets does not "wrap" the messages to ensure that a single message sent with Socket.Send() is received in one Socket.Receive() call? Or does it?
My implementation so far:
private void StartListening()
{
IPHostEntry ipHostInfo = Dns.GetHostEntry(Dns.GetHostName());
IPEndPoint localEP = new IPEndPoint(ipHostInfo.AddressList[0], Constants.PortNumber);
Socket listener = new Socket(localEP.Address.AddressFamily, SocketType.Stream, ProtocolType.Tcp);
listener.Bind(localEP);
listener.Listen(10);
while (true)
{
// Reset the event.
this.listenAllDone.Reset();
// Begin waiting for a connection
listener.BeginAccept(new AsyncCallback(this.AcceptCallback), listener);
// Wait for the event.
this.listenAllDone.WaitOne();
}
}
private void AcceptCallback(IAsyncResult ar)
{
// Get the socket that handles the client request.
Socket listener = (Socket) ar.AsyncState;
Socket handler = listener.EndAccept(ar);
// Signal the main thread to continue.
this.listenAllDone.Set();
// Accept the incoming connection and save a reference to the new Socket in the client data.
CClient client = new CClient();
client.Socket = handler;
lock (this.clientList)
{
this.clientList.Add(client);
}
while (true)
{
this.readAllDone.Reset();
// Begin waiting on data from the client.
handler.BeginReceive(client.DataBuffer, 0, client.DataBuffer.Length, 0, new AsyncCallback(this.ReadCallback), client);
this.readAllDone.WaitOne();
}
}
private void ReadCallback(IAsyncResult asyn)
{
CClient theClient = (CClient)asyn.AsyncState;
// End the receive and get the number of bytes read.
int iRx = theClient.Socket.EndReceive(asyn);
if (iRx != 0)
{
// Data was read from the socket.
// So save the data
byte[] recievedMsg = new byte[iRx];
Array.Copy(theClient.DataBuffer, recievedMsg, iRx);
this.readAllDone.Set();
// Decode the message recieved and act accordingly.
theClient.DecodeAndProcessMessage(recievedMsg);
// Go back to waiting for data.
this.WaitForData(theClient);
}
}
Yes, it is possible you'll have only part of message per one receiving, also it can be even worse during transfer only part of message will be sent. Usually you can see that during bad network conditions or under heavy network load.
To be clear on network level TCP guaranteed to transfer your data in specified order but it not guaranteed that portions of data will be same as you sent. There are many reasons for that software (take a look to Nagle's algorithm for example), hardware (different routers in trace), OS implementation, so in general you should never assume what part of data already transferred or received.
Sorry for long introduction, below some advices:
Try to use relatevely "new" API for high-performance socket server, here samples Networking Samples for .NET v4.0
Do not assume you always send full packet. Socket.EndSend() returns number of bytes actually scheduled to send, it can be even 1-2 bytes under heavy network load. So you have to implement resend rest part of buffer when it required.
There is warning on MSDN:
There is no guarantee that the data
you send will appear on the network
immediately. To increase network
efficiency, the underlying system may
delay transmission until a significant
amount of outgoing data is collected.
A successful completion of the
BeginSend method means that the
underlying system has had room to
buffer your data for a network send.
Do not assume you always receive full packet. Join received data in some kind of buffer and analyze it when it have enough data.
Usually, for binary protocols, I add field to indicate how much data incoming, field with message type (or you can use fixed length per message type (generally not good, e.g. versioning problem)), version field (where applicable) and add CRC-field to end of message.
It not really required to read, a bit old and applies directly to Winsock but maybe worth to study: Winsock Programmer's FAQ
Take a look to ProtocolBuffers, it worth to learn: http://code.google.com/p/protobuf-csharp-port/, http://code.google.com/p/protobuf-net/
Hope it helps.
P.S. Sadly sample on MSDN you refer in question effectively ruin async paradigm as stated in other answers.
Your code is very wrong. Doing loops like that defeats the purpose of asynchronous programming. Async IO is used to not block the thread but let them continue doing other work. By looping like that, you are blocking the thread.
void StartListening()
{
_listener.BeginAccept(OnAccept, null);
}
void OnAccept(IAsyncResult res)
{
var clientSocket = listener.EndAccept(res);
//begin accepting again
_listener.BeginAccept(OnAccept, null);
clientSocket.BeginReceive(xxxxxx, OnRead, clientSocket);
}
void OnReceive(IAsyncResult res)
{
var socket = (Socket)res.Asyncstate;
var bytesRead = socket.EndReceive(res);
socket.BeginReceive(xxxxx, OnReceive, socket);
//handle buffer here.
}
Note that I've removed all error handling to make the code cleaner. That code do not block any thread and is therefore much more effecient. I would break the code up in two classes: the server handling code and the client handling code. It makes it easier to maintain and extend.
Next thing to understand is that TCP is a stream protocol. It do not guarentee that a message arrives in one Receive. Therefore you must know either how large a message is or when it ends.
The first solution is to prefix each message with an header which you parse first and then continue reading until you get the complete body/message.
The second solution is to put some control character at the end of each message and continue reading until the control character is read. Keep in mind that you should encode that character if it can exist in the actual message.
You need to send fixed length messages or include in the header the length of the message. Try to have something that allows you to clearly identify the start of a packet.
I found 2 very useful links:
http://vadmyst.blogspot.com/2008/03/part-2-how-to-transfer-fixed-sized-data.html
C# Async TCP sockets: Handling buffer size and huge transfers