I have rather simple UDP server written on c.
Sometimes i need to know current length of all udp packets(bytes) queued in socket.
As i understand, getsockopt doesn't get such information.
Linux and FreeBSD solutions are both welcome, thanks!
ioctl(FIONREAD, ...) should be roughly what you are looking for,
http://www.daemon-systems.org/man/ioctl.2.html
From outside of the server (command line), you can do
netstat -uln
which will show you the length of all listening udp sockets.
Related
So I'm sort of lost and need some direction for research.
I want to build a real-time audio chat environment with as low latency as possible.
I've done a little research and it looks like I have to use the UDP over TCP protocol, but I'm unsure of how to do this.
If I had a dedicated server running lamp, would I run a separate application listen for and serve UDP packets?
Any direction woudl be appreciated.
The best way when it comes to audio or video is to always use the UDP protocol, this protocol does not provide error control, UDP is connectionless protocol that tells me that when you send a data over UDP you don't know if it'll get there, can occur corruption while transferring, to audio or video this can be a nice idea !
You can create dedicated server listening in UDP port to receive all data and pass to the corresponding client!
You need learn about socket programming, choose your preferred language and learn how use socket, this is the way.
So we have an application that makes udp calls and sends packets. However, since responses are given for UDP calls, how could we ensure that the service is up and the port is open and that things are getting stored?
The only thought we have right now is to send in test packets and ensure they are getting saved out to the db.
So my over all question is, is there a better, easier way to ensure that our udp calls are succeeding?
On the listening host, you can validate that the port is open with netstat. For example, if your application uses UDP port 68, you could run:
# Grep for :<port> from netstat output.
$ netstat -lnu | grep :68
udp 0 0 0.0.0.0:68 0.0.0.0:*
You could also send some test data to your application, and then check your database to verify that the fixture data made it into your database. That doesn't mean it always will be, just that it's working at the time of the test.
Ultimately, the problem is that UDP packets are best-effort, and not guaranteed. So unless you can configure your logging platform to send some sort of acknowledgment after data is received and/or written, then you can't guarantee anything. The very nature of UDP is that it leaves acknowledgments (if any) to the application layer.
We took a different approach and we are checking to make sure the calls made it to the db. Its easy enough to query a table and ensure records are in there. If none recent, we know something is wrong. CodeGnome had a good idea, just not the route we went. Thanks!
I know that UDP is inherently unreliable, but when connecting to localhost I would expect the kernel handles the connection differently since everything can be handled internally. So in this special case, is UDP considered a reliable protocol, or will the kernel still potentially junk some packets if buffers are overrun?
I have seen UDP to localhost dropping packets. We think we were overloading the kernel queue. All we know for sure is that it was dropping packets.
I repeat a previous answer to a related question. To remain portable always anticipate your UDP sockets might drop packets or receive out of order data.
I don't think that UDP (or any other network protocol) says anything about different behavior when connecting to localhost. So the answer will depend on the specific kernel that you're using. Best to assume that UDP will behave like UDP.
Suppose a client sends a number of datagrams to a server through my application. If my application on the server side stops working and cannot receive any datagrams, but the client still continues to send more data grams to the server through UDP protocol, where are those datagrams going? Will they stay in the server's OS data buffer (or something?)
I ask this question because I want to know that if a client send 1000 datagrams (1K each) to a PC over the internet, will those 1000 datagrams go through the internet (consuming the bandwidth) even if no one is listening to those data?
If the answer is Yes, how should I stop this happening? I mean if a server stops functioning, how should I use UDP to get to know the fact and stops any further sending?
Thanks
I ask this question because I want to know that if a client send 1000 datagrams (1K each) to a PC over the internet, will those 1000 datagrams go through the internet (consuming the bandwidth) even if no one is listening to those data?
Yes
If the answer is Yes, how should I stop this happening? I mean if a server stops functioning, how should I use UDP to get to know the fact and stops any further sending?
You need a protocol level control loop i.e. you need to implement a protocol to take care of this situation. UDP isn't connection-oriented so it is up to the "application" that uses UDP to account for this failure-mode.
UDP itself do not provide facilities to determine if message is successfully received by a client or not. You need you TCP to establish reliable connection and after it sends data over UDP.
The lowest overhead solution would be a keep-alive type thing like jdupont suggested. You can also change to use tcp, which provides this facility for you.
I have an application where I have potentially many processes must send a message to one process. I figured the most expedient way to do this would be to just send a UDP datagram.
When opening a socket, I need to specify which port to listen to. As I just want to fire and forget the UDP datagram, I'd like to just have the OS pick an available port. I'd rather not have to hunt for one, especially as many instances of my process may be running. Is there a way I can tell the OS to just pick an available port (or better yet, not even open a listening socket) to fire and forget my UDP datagram?
Yes. Specify 0 as the port. The OS will pick an available port for you.
Answering the "Problem" rather than the "Question"
If all the processes are operating on the same PC, you might want to look into shared files or some other means of communications other than a networking stack.
I'd suggest you explore the options in Boost's Interprocess library
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_37_0/doc/html/interprocess.html
Quick guide here:
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_37_0/doc/html/interprocess/quick_guide.html
Specifically, I suggest you use a named pipe or shared memory between your processes.