Since Windows Registered I/O (RIO) Sockets don't have an internal buffer and SO_RCVBUF socket option doesn't apply. How is the Tcp window calculated/advertised for those?
RIO API extensions are more helpful for large numbers of small messages transmission scenario. It uses queue technique to speed up receiving and sending operations.
For multiple RIOReceive, you can point to different sub-buffer in the registered buffer using different Offset and Length of the RIO_BUF structure.
Registered buffer will not affect the receive window size. Refer to the following documents if you want to change it.
TCP Receive Window Auto-Tuning Level feature in Windows
SIO_SET_COMPATIBILITY_MODE Control Code
SetTcpWindowSize method of the Win32_NetworkAdapterConfiguration class
Related
If we send two messages over the same html5 websocket a split millisecond apart from each other,
Is it theoretically possible for the messages to arrive in a different order than they were sent?
Short answer: No.
Long answer:
WebSocket runs over TCP, so on that level #EJP 's answer applies. WebSocket can be "intercepted" by intermediaries (like WS proxies): those are allowed to reorder WebSocket control frames (i.e. WS pings/pongs), but not message frames when no WebSocket extension is in place. If there is a neogiated extension in place that in principle allows reordering, then an intermediary may only do so if it understands the extension and the reordering rules that apply.
It's not possible for them to arrive in your application out of order. Anything can happen on the network, but TCP will only present you the bytes in the order they were sent.
At the network layer TCP is suppose to guarantee that messages arrive in order. At the application layer, errors can occur in the code and cause your messages to be out of order in the logic of your code. It could be the network stack your application is using or your application code itself.
If you asked me, can my Node.js application guarantee sending and receiving messages in order? I'm going to have to say no. I've run websocket applications connected to WiFi under high latency and low signal. It causes very strange behavior as if packets are dropped and messages are out of sequence.
This article is a good read https://samsaffron.com/archive/2015/12/29/websockets-caution-required
A server needs to listen to incoming data from several sockets (10-20). After some initializations, those sockets are created and do not change (i.e. no new sockets accepted, and none of them is expected to close during the lifetime of the server).
One option is to select() on all sockets, then deal with incoming data per socket (i.e. route to proper handling function).
Another option is to open one thread per socket and let each thread recv() and handle the input.
(The first option has the benefit of setting a timeout, but this is not an issue in this case,
since all the sockets are quite active).
Assuming the following: Windows server, has enough memory such that 20MB (for the 20 threads) is a non-issue, is any of those options expected to be faster then the other?
There's not much in it in you app. Typically, using a thread-per-socket is easier than asynchronous approaches because it's a simpler overall structure and it's easier to maintain state.
I have created a client/server program, the client starts
an instance of Writer class and the server starts an instance of
Reader class. Writer will then write a DATA_SIZE bytes of data
asynchronously to the Reader every USLEEP mili seconds.
Every successive async_write request by the Writer is done
only if the "on write" handler from the previous request had
been called.
The problem is, If the Writer (client) is writing more data into the
socket than the Reader (server) is capable of receiving this seems
to be the behaviour:
Writer will start writing into (I think) system buffer and even
though the data had not yet been received by the Reader it will be
calling the "on write" handler without an error.
When the buffer is full, boost::asio won't fire the "on write"
handler anymore, untill the buffer gets smaller.
In the meanwhile, the Reader is still receiving small chunks
of data.
The fact that the Reader keeps receiving bytes after I close
the Writer program seems to prove this theory correct.
What I need to achieve is to prevent this buffering because the
data need to be "real time" (as much as possible).
I'm guessing I need to use some combination of the socket options that
asio offers, like the no_delay or send_buffer_size, but I'm just guessing
here as I haven't had success experimenting with these.
I think that the first solution that one can think of is to use
UDP instead of TCP. This will be the case as I'll need to switch to
UDP for other reasons as well in the near future, but I would
first like to find out how to do it with TCP just for the sake
of having it straight in my head in case I'll have a similar
problem some other day in the future.
NOTE1: Before I started experimenting with asynchronous operations in asio library I had implemented this same scenario using threads, locks and asio::sockets and did not experience such buffering at that time. I had to switch to the asynchronous API because asio does not seem to allow timed interruptions of synchronous calls.
NOTE2: Here is a working example that demonstrates the problem: http://pastie.org/3122025
EDIT: I've done one more test, in my NOTE1 I mentioned that when I was using asio::iosockets I did not experience this buffering. So I wanted to be sure and created this test: http://pastie.org/3125452 It turns out that the buffering is there event with asio::iosockets, so there must have been something else that caused it to go smoothly, possibly lower FPS.
TCP/IP is definitely geared for maximizing throughput as intention of most network applications is to transfer data between hosts. In such scenarios it is expected that a transfer of N bytes will take T seconds and clearly it doesn't matter if receiver is a little slow to process data. In fact, as you noticed TCP/IP protocol implements the sliding window which allows the sender to buffer some data so that it is always ready to be sent but leaves the ultimate throttling control up to the receiver. Receiver can go full speed, pace itself or even pause transmission.
If you don't need throughput and instead want to guarantee that the data your sender is transmitting is as close to real time as possible, then what you need is to make sure the sender doesn't write the next packet until he receives an acknowledgement from the receiver that it has processed the previous data packet. So instead of blindly sending packet after packet until you are blocked, define a message structure for control messages to be sent back from the receiver back to the sender.
Obviously with this approach, your trade off is that each sent packet is closer to real-time of the sender but you are limiting how much data you can transfer while slightly increasing total bandwidth used by your protocol (i.e. additional control messages). Also keep in mind that "close to real-time" is relative because you will still face delays in the network as well as ability of the receiver to process data. So you might also take a look at the design constraints of your specific application to determine how "close" do you really need to be.
If you need to be very close, but at the same time you don't care if packets are lost because old packet data is superseded by new data, then UDP/IP might be a better alternative. However, a) if you have reliable deliver requirements, you might ends up reinventing a portion of tcp/ip's wheel and b) keep in mind that certain networks (corporate firewalls) tend to block UDP/IP while allowing TCP/IP traffic and c) even UDP/IP won't be exact real-time.
I am designing an simulator application where the application launches multiple socket connection(around 1000 connections) to a server. I don't want to launch as many as threads to handle those connections, since the system cant handle that much clients. Using Select doesnt make sense, since i need to loop through 1000 connections which may be slow. Please suggest me how to handle this scenario.
You want to be using asynchronous I/O with an I/O Completion Port (IOCP).
It's too much to explain shortly, but any Windows application that needs to support a large number of concurrent sockets should be using an IOCP.
An IOCP is essentially an Windows-provided thread safe work queue. You queue a 'completion packet' to an IOCP and then another thread dequeues it and does work with it.
You can also associate many types of handles that support overlapped operations, such as sockets, to an IOCP. When you associate a handle with an IOCP, overlapped operations such as WSARecv will automatically post a completion packet to the associated IOCP.
So, essentially, you could have one thread handling all 1000 connections. Each socket will be created as an overlapped socket and then associated with your IOCP. You can then call WSARecv on all 1000 sockets and wait for a completion packet to become available. When data is received, the operating system will post a completion packet to the associated IOCP. This will contain relevant information, such as how much data was read and the buffer containing the data.
Looping through 1000 handles is still significantly faster than sending 1000 packets, so I wouldn't worry about performance here. select() is still the way to go.
I have a problem with a socket library that uses WSAASyncSelect to put the socket into asynchronous mode. In asynchronous mode the socket is placed into a non-blocking mode (WSAWOULDBLOCK is returned on any operations that would block) and windows messages are posted to a notification window to inform the application when the socket is ready to be read, written to etc.
My problem is this - when receiving a FD_READ event I don't know how many bytes to try and recv. If I pass a buffer thats too small, then winsock will automatically post another FD_READ event telling me theres more data to read. If data is arriving very fast, this can saturate the message queue with FD_READ messages, and as WM_TIMER and WM_PAINT messages are only posted when the message queue is empty this means that an application could stop painting if its receiving a lot of data and useing asynchronous sockets with a too small buffer.
How large to make the buffer then? I tried using ioctlsocket(FIONREAD) to get the number of bytes to read, and make a buffer exactly that large, BUT, KB192599 explicitly warns that that approach is fraught with inefficiency.
How do I pick a buffer size thats big enough, but not crazy big?
As far as I could ever work out, the value set using setsockopt with the SO_RVCBUF option is an upper bound on the FIONREAD value. So rather than call ioctlsocket it should be OK to call getsockopt to find out the SO_RCVBUF setting, and use that as the (attempted) value for each recv.
Based on your comment to Aviad P.'s answer, it sounds like this would solve your problem.
(Disclaimer: I have always used FIONREAD myself. But after reading the linked-to KB article I will probably be changing...)
You can set your buffer to be as big as you can without impacting performance, relying on the TCP PUSH flag to make your reads return before filling the buffer if the sender sent a smaller message.
The TCP PUSH flag is set at a logical message boundary (normally after a send operation, unless explicitly set to false). When the receiving end sees the PUSH flag on a TCP packet, it returns any blocking reads (or asynchronous reads, doesn't matter) with whatever's accumulated in the receive buffer up to the PUSH point.
So if your sender is sending reasonable sized messages, you're ok, if he's not, then you limit your buffer size such that even if you read into it all, you don't negatively impact performance (subjective).