Let's say I am trying to send data using udp socket. If the data is big then I think the data is going to be divided into several packets and sent to the destination.
At the destination, if there is more than one incoming packets then how to I combined those separated packets into the original packet? Do I need to have a data structure that save all the incoming udp based on the sender ? Thanks in advance..
If you are simply sending the data in one datagram, using a single send() call, then the fragmentation and reassembly will be done for you, by the transport layer. All you need to do is supply a large enough buffer to recv(), and if all the fragments have arrived, then they will be reassembled and presented to you as a single datagram.
Basically, this is the service that UDP provides you (where a "datagram" is a single block of data sent by a single send() call):
The datagram may not arrive at all;
The datagram may arrive out-of-order with respect to other datagrams;
The datagram may arrive more than once;
If the datagram does arrive, it will be complete and correct1.
However, if you are performing the division of the data into several UDP datagrams yourself, at the application layer, then you will of course be responsible for reassembling it too.
1. Correct with the probability implied by the UDP checksum, anyway.
You should use TCP for this. TCP is for structured data that needs to arrive in a certain order without being dropped.
On the other hand, UDP is used when the packet becomes irrelevant after ~500 ms. This is used in games, telephony, and so on.
If your problem requires UDP, then you need to handle any lost, duplicate, or out-of-order packets yourself, or at least write code that is resilient to that possibility.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_Datagram_Protocol
If you can't afford lost packets, then TCP is probably a better option than UDP, since it provides that guarantee out of the box.
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 am super new to the networking world, so I have a QTcpserver that's currently working with the newConnection signal, but I was wondering if I could use QUdpSocket with a QTcpServer ? It's this possible at all ?
TCP is a connection oriented stream over an IP network. It guarantees
that all sent packets will reach the destination in the correct order.
This imply the use of acknowledgement packets sent back to the sender,
and automatic retransmission, causing additional delays and a general
less efficient transmission than UDP.
UDP is a connection-less protocol. Communication is datagram oriented.
The integrity is guaranteed only on the single datagram. Datagrams
reach destination and can arrive out of order or don't arrive at all.
It is more efficient than TCP because it uses non ACK. It's generally
used for real time communication, where a little percentage of packet
loss rate is preferable to the overhead of a TCP connection.
StackOverFlow
So the simple Answer is No , You can't ,because tcp and udp are 2 different protocols .
I want to develop a program in c using pjsip for peer to peer file transfer. As pjsip uses ice and in ICE UDP is used, so do I need to handle the packet delivery assurance.
And as I would be sending the file by breaking it into several parts and them re assemble all the parts at the receiver's end, so do I have to maintain the sequence of the packets or can i assume that packets are delivered in the correct sequence??
With UDP you can neither assume that packets are delivered in order nor that they are delivered exactly once nor that they are delivered at all! So you need to come up with a protocol that does a lot of things which normally TCP would take care of. It has to reassemble the original data stream and handle the things I listed above.
Additionally, with UDP you can have the problem that you cause congestion. TCP can avoid that with its congestion avoidance algorithms, with UDP you can easily send packets too fast causing them to drop at the overloaded router.
All these are non trivial problems to solve so I suggest you read up on the topic. I'd start with a good book about TCP.
Hi I am writing a program that will send a file from client to server using UDP socket using different packet sizes for example 512B, 1KB and 2KB and i don't want use fixed buffer size in the receiver(server).I need some codes in Java that will allow both server and client to agree upon a packet size before transfer start. Many thanks
Don't you forget that UDP packets may be fragmented, duplicated and lost? There is a whole bunch of things to take care of, starting with lost packet retransmissions.
I hate to give a "don't do this" kind of answers, but for this one, just use TCP. And if you want some user-level "packets", you can have them with TCP also (prefix each one with its length, that's enough).
I have an application that transmits some data in a loop.
Underlying protocol is UDP on WinSock. If I don't add sleep(1ms) after each transmit operation most of the data is not sent (or wireshark can not capture it) Have you experienced such a behavour that UDP does not handle repetitive sending in a loop ?
Regards
Tugrul
First thing you should check the return values when you send data to check if data is successfully sent or not.
Second thing, This can happen internal buffer of UDP cannot accommodate more data because previous data is yet not transmitted. So the simplest solution is that each time before send the data you should check if your UDP socket is writable or not. You can do it by calling "select" or "poll" on that UDP socket.