I'm trying to make a TCP connection between a server(in this case, my PC) and my telit gl865-dual modem.
I am connecting the modem via serial port(ftdi adaptor) and send or recieve data and commands directly my computer.
The connection can be established and data transmission can be done both ways. But when the modem sends data, there is a delay at least 3-5 seconds, the answer of server can be seen on module in miliseconds.
The commands I use(>> indicates the respond from module):
ad#sd = 1, 0, 4444, "myserversip"
>> CONNECT
Is there a way to arrange send time like server's?
Thanks.
This must be due to slow network.
Check your network speed, if good then you have to see your server side code, why it's delaying.
Related
I have 1 server and several (maybe up to 20) clients. All clients are sending UDP datagram at random time. Each datagram is quite short (about 10B), but I must make sure all the data from each client is received correctly.
If I let all clients send datagram to the same port, and client B sends it datagram at the exact time when the server is receiving data from client A, it seems the server will miss the data from client A.
So what's the correct method to do this job? Do I need to create a listener for each of the 20 clients?
When you bind a UDP socket to a port, the networking stack will allocate a buffer for a finite number of incoming UDP packets for you, so that (assuming you call recv() in a relatively timely manner), no incoming packets should get lost.
If you want see your buffer size in terminal, you can take a look at:
/proc/sys/net/core/rmem_default for recv
and
/proc/sys/net/core/wmem_default for send
I think the default buffer size on Linux is 131071B.
On Linux, you can change the UDP buffer size (e.g. to 26214400) by (as root):
sysctl -w net.core.rmem_max=26214400
You can also make it permanent by adding this line to /etc/sysctl.conf:
net.core.rmem_max=26214400
Since each packet is only 10B, shouldnt be a problem.
If you are still worried about packet loss you could implement a protocol where your client waits for a ACK from the server or it will resend. Many protocols use such a feature, but this is only possible if timing allows it. For example in streaming data it is not useful because there is no time to resend.
or consider using tcp ( if it is an option)
I'm currently working a network protocol which includes a client-to-client system with auto-discovering of clients on the current local network.
Right now, I'm periodically broadsting over 255.255.255.255 and if a client doesn't emit for 30 seconds I consider it dead (then offline). The goal is to keep an up-to-date list of clients runing. It's working well using UDP, but UDP does not ensure that the packets have been sucessfully delivered. So when it comes to the WiFi parts of the network, I sometimes have "false postivives" of dead clients. Currently I've reduced the time between 2 broadcasts to solve the issue (still not working well), but I don't find this clean.
Is there anything I can do to keep a list of "online" clients without this risk of "false positives" ?
To minimize the false positives, due to dropped packets you should alter a little bit the logic of your heartbeat protocol.
Rather than relying on a single packet broadcast per N seconds, you can send a burst 3 or more packets immediately one after the other every N seconds. This is an approach that ping and traceroute tools follow. With this method you decrease significantly the probability of a lost announcement from a peer.
Furthermore, you can specify a certain number of lost announcements that your application can afford. Also, in order to minimize the possibility of packet loss using wireless network, try to minimize as much as possible the size of the broadcast UDP packet.
You can turn this over, so you will broadcast "ServerIsUp" message
and every client than can register on server. When client is going offline it will unregister, otherwise you can consider it alive.
I have an embedded device (source) which is sending out a stream of (audio) data in chunks of 20 ms (= about 330 bytes) by means of a UDP packets. The network volume is thus fairly low at about 16kBps (practically somewhat more due to UDP/IP overhead). The device is running the lwIP stack (v1.3.2) and connects to a WiFi network using a WiFi solution from H&D Wireless (HDG104, WiFi G-mode). The destination (sink) is a Windows Vista PC which is also connected to the WiFi network using a USB WiFi dongle (WiFi G-mode). A program is running on the PC which allows me to monitor the amount of dropped packets. I am also running Wireshark to analyze the network traffic directly. No other clients are actively sending data over the network at this point.
When I send the data using broadcast or multicast many packets are dropped, sometimes upto 15%. However, when I switch to using UDP unicast, the amount of packets dropped is negligible (< 2%).
Using UDP I expect packets to be dropped (which is OK in my Audio application), but why do I see such a big difference in performance between Broadcast/Multicast and unicast?
My router is a WRT54GS (FW v7.50.2) and the PC (sink) is using a trendnet TEW-648UB network adapter, running in WiFi G-mode.
This looks like it is a well known WiFi issue:
Quoted from http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/tutorials/article.php/3433451
The 802.11 (Wi-Fi) standards specify support for multicasting as part of asynchronous services. An 802.11 client station, such as a wireless laptop or PDA (not an access point), begins a multicast delivery by sending multicast packets in 802.11 unicast data frames directed to only the access point. The access point responds with an 802.11 acknowledgement frame sent to the source station if no errors are found in the data frame.
If the client sending the frame doesnt receive an acknowledgement, then the client will retransmit the frame. With multicasting, the leg of the data path from the wireless client to the access point includes transmission error recovery. The 802.11 protocols ensure reliability between stations in both infrastructure and ad hoc configurations when using unicast data frame transmissions.
After receiving the unicast data frame from the client, the access point transmits the data (that the originating client wants to multicast) as a multicast frame, which contains a group address as the destination for the intended recipients. Each of the destination stations can receive the frame; however, they do not respond with acknowledgements. As a result, multicasting doesnt ensure a complete, reliable flow of data.
The lack of acknowledgments with multicasting means that some of the data your application is sending may not make it to all of the destinations, and theres no indication of a successful reception. This may be okay, though, for some applications, especially ones where its okay to have gaps in data. For instance, the continual streaming of telemetry from a control valve monitor can likely miss status updates from time-to-time.
This article has more information:
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/08/44/57/PDF/RR-5947.pdf
One very interesting side-effect of the multicast implementation (at the WiFi MAC layer) is that as long as your receivers are wired, you will not experience any issues (due to the acknowledgement on the receiver side, which is really a unicast connection). However, with WiFi receivers (as in my case), packet loss is enormous and completely unacceptable for audio.
Multicast does not have ack packets and so there is no retransmission of lost packets. This makes perfect sense as there are many receivers and it's not like they can all reply at the same time (the air is shared like coax Ethernet). If they were all to send acks in sequence using some backoff scheme it would eat all your bandwidth.
UDP streaming with packet loss is a well known challenge and is usually solved using some type of forward error correction. Recently a class known as fountain codes, such as Raptor-Q, shows promise for packet loss problem in particular when there are several unreliable sources for the data at the same time. (example: multiple wifi access points covering an area)
Does anyone know how to create a raw socket to a USB device? Like you can create raw sockets to ethernet devices, I would like to send/receive arbitrary data to a USB device.
Depends on the platform - you need a low level USB library.
Either http://sourceforge.net/projects/libusb/ or http://sourceforge.net/projects/libusb-win32/ is a good place to start
ps. It isn't a socket as such, sockets are specific to networks
You can write to the EndPoint using a Raw Socket but a certain protocol needs to be followed for the device to physically accept and reply to commands.
Depending on how the protocol is written you may be able to use a a RawSocket and some Usb sniffer to replay the data to the EndPoint but most devices employ a Timestamp and handshake process which needs to be performed dynamically for each connection and usually involves querying the device state and using the information to complete the handshake along with other information depending on the protocol of the device in question.
I have situation where I have to handle multiple live UDP streams in the server.
I have two options (as I think)
Single Socket :
1) Listen at single port on the server and receive the data from all clients on the same port and create threads for each client to process the data till the client stop sending.
Here only one port is used to receive the data and number of threads used to process the data.
Multiple Sockets :
2) Client will request open port from the server to send the data and the application will send the open port to the client and opens a new thread listening at the port to receive and process the data.Here for each client will have unique port to send the data.
I already implemented a way to know which packet is coming from which client in UDP.
I have 1000+ clients and 60KB data per second I am receiving.
Is there any performance issues using the above methods
or Is here any efficient way to handle this type of task in C ?
Thanks,
Raghu
With that many clients, having one thread per client is very inefficient since lots and lots of context switches must be performed.
Also, the number of ports you can open per IP is limited (port is a 16 bit number).
Therefore "Single Socket" will be far more efficient. But you can also use "Multipe Sokets" with just a single thread using the asynchronous API. If you can identify the client using the package's payload, then there is no need to have a port per client.