I am creating a chat application, which runs as a service. I connect to the chat server using a socket, and I declared a timeout using setSoTimeout.
When a connection is idle, (for example when I am at home and connected to WiFi) I never face issues. When I go outside, and my WiFi connection is lost, my phone switches to 3G. The problem is that the socket stays connected without receiving any data. (So the timeout exception isn't called.) < sometimes it connects after 30 mins, but this need to be reduced to at least a few seconds.
I also tried to add a CONNECTIVITY_CHANGE broadcast detector in my AndroidManifest.xml, this also didn't work.
See my socket connection below:
socket = new Socket(proxy);
SocketAddress socketAddress = new InetSocketAddress(HOST,
PORT);
socket.connect(socketAddress);
if (socket.isConnected()) {
socket.setSoTimeout(1020000); //Even when setting to 10000 makes no sense
return true;
} else {
Log.w("WARNING", "Failed to connect to the server");
return false;
}
In the background there are also some loops running which checks the server for chatmessages, these loops triggers a reconnect when no data is received, but this didn't work too. (During reconnect, I set the socket to socket.close() and socket = null before connecting again.)
So are there any ideas, maybe I need to use a different socket? Or some other code to resolve this problem? Thanks.
In such unexpected(as per application's perspective) network disconnection, the socket won't know it was disconnected. If this situation occurs, the only way is to try writing some data to the socket. When the socket is disconnected, writing data would throw IOExcpetion with message like Connection reset.
You'd better implement a heartbeat method to detect the disconnection. A packet sent to server every 5~10 seconds would detect network disconnection speedy enough.
Related
I have a Java socket connection established with a server A. Server A randomly restarts during the day and my Java socket connection infinitely waits because it thinks that is receiving data.
I have set the soTimeout but it is only kicking in while read is still going on.
How do I set force a timeout on the socket connection? I want to break the socket connection after a set period of time.
Socket mySocket = new Socket(host, port) ;
mySocket.setKeepAlive(true);
mySocket.setSoTimeout(timeout);
You don't need to break the connection periodically. You may just use TCP Keepalive mechanism to send small "ping" requests in defined intervals. Whenever one of parties does not respond, TCP connection is closed. More info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keepalive
I am trying to simulate UDP using Java. I am sending a file from one host to another. This is the part of the receiver:
server.setSoTimeout(10000);
while (true)
{
try
{
DatagramPacket received = new DatagramPacket(receivedData,receivedData.length);
server.receive(received);
out.write(received.getData());
}
catch (IOException e) {
break;
}
}
server.close();
This solution works, but I am not satisfied with it for some reason.
Sender sends all the packets and then it closes the DatagramSocket. Receiver gets all the packets and it terminates, but it terminates because of the timeout.
So if switch on my receiver and don't execute anything for 10 secs, my Receiver shuts off, so nothing is transmitted.
Is there a way of terminating the loop without specifying the timeout?
I was also wondering if there is a method for the other host to establish connection - something like ServerSocket.accept(), which basically waits for the other host to connect.But, I decided to use DatagramSocket and I can't find a solution to this issue.
Does anybody know of a method that would perform this?
No.
Datagram (UDP) sockets are inherently connectionless. Closing a DatagramSocket does not have any effect which is visible to a remote system. It prevents an application from sending or receiving any further data on that socket, and frees up the port for use by other applications on the local system, but it does not cause any notification to be sent over the network.
If you want to notify the remote server that you are done sending data, you will need to send them a datagram notifying them of that.
If you are trying to transfer a file over UDP, keep in mind that UDP packets are not guaranteed to be received, nor are they guaranteed to be received in the same order they are transmitted! (That is, they may be dropped or reordered by the network.)
I currently have a simple instant messaging program which is utilizing Java's Socket and ServerSocket classes. It is functioning as intended but when I attempt to close the connection it is not using the 4 way handshake TCP teardown to close the connection. Instead it is closing the connection abruptly with an RST packet.
The way in which I am closing the connection is sending a string from the client to the server which the server will recognize as the command to close the connection. I then use the ServerSocket.close() method on the server and the Socket.close() method on the client.
What is the correct way and/or order of events to properly close a TCP connection utilizing these classes?
Client side disconnect code:
//Disconnects from remote server
//Returns true on success, false on failure
public boolean disconnect(){
try{
this.clientOut.println("0x000000");
this.clientRemoteSocket.close();
this.isConnected = false;
return true;
}catch(Exception e){
return false;
}
}
Server side disconnect code:
//Check to see if the client wants to close the connection
//If yes, then close the connection and break out of the while loop
if(incoming.equals("0x000000")){
serverLocalSocket.close();
break;
}
EDIT:
The code works perfectly fine. I'm just trying to learn socket programming in Java and know that a proper TCP teardown process is to include a 4 way handshake. A FIN packet to the remote host, then an ACK packet from the remote host back. Then a FIN packet from the remote host, then an ACK packet to the remote host. When monitoring the traffic via Wireshark I am not getting that. Instead I am getting a FIN to the remote server, then a RST/ACK back from the server.
This image depicts a proper TCP 4 way teardown process.
So far everything I've found suggest that all one needs is a call to close() or to just let Java's Try-with-resources statement handle the clean up. I can't see Java implementing functionality which does not comply with the standard TCP specifications though. It is very possible I may be calling certain lines in an incorrect order or something of the sort, I'm just unaware of it.
If you are resetting your own connection on close, either:
You haven't read all the pending incoming data that was sent by the peer, or
You had already written to the connection which had previously already been closed by the peer.
In both cases, an application protocol error.
The great part about TCP is if you close your socket, your partner will automatically know and throw an error on reading.
So all you have to do in the client is:
clientRemoteSocket.close();
And with the server, just add an error case to your normal reading of data:
try {
// Read from the socket:
incoming = socketInputStream.read();
// Handle the data here
} catch (IOException e) {
// Client has disconnected
}
There might be a more specfic exception you can catch, I'm not sure, it's been a while. But that should work. Good luck!
For those who do not want to read a long question here is a short version:
A server has an opened socket for a client. The server gets a request to open a socket from
the same client-IP and client-port. I want to fore the server not to refuse such a request but to close the old socket and open a new one. How can I do ti?
And here is a long (original) question:
I have the following situation. There is an established connection between a server and client. Then an external software (Bonjour) says to my client the it does not see the server in the local network. Well, client does nothing about that because of the following reasons:
If Bonjour does not see the server it does not necessarily means that client cannot see the server.
Even if the client trusts the Bonjour and close the socket it does not improve the situation ("to have no open socket" is worser that "to have a potentially bad socket").
So, client do nothing if server becomes invisible to Bonjour. But than the server re-appears in the Bonjour and Bonjour notify the client about that. In this situation the following situations are possible:
The server reappears on a new IP address. So, the client needs to open a new socket to be able to communicate with the server.
The server reappears on the old IP address. In this case we have two subcases:
2.1. The server was restarted (switched off and then switched on). So, it does not remember the old socket (which is still used by the client). So, client needs to close the old socket and open a new one (on the same server-IP address and the same server-port).
2.2. We had a temporal network problem and the server was running the whole time. So, the old socket is still available for the use. In this case the client does not really need to close the old socket and reopen a new one.
But to simplify my life I decide to close and reopen the socket on the client side in any case (in spite on the fact that it is not really needed in the last described situation).
But I can have problems with that solution. If I close the socket on the client side and than try to reopen a socket from the same client-IP and client-port, server will not accept the call for a new socket. The server will think that such a socket already exists.
Can I write the server in such a way, that it does not refuse such calls. For example, if it (the server) sees that a client send a request for a socket from the same client-IP and client-port, it (server) close the available socket, associated with this client-IP and client-port and than it reopens a new socket.
You can't "reopen" a socket on your server. If the socket already exists and the client is trying to reconnect then you should get an BindException (see your previous question). The scenario that may be possible:
Client Shuts down socket
Server OS "notices" socket is dead on client side and shuts its side down
Client reconnects on the same port, but with a "new" socket
In this case you may consider it be the "same" socket, but it really isn't. That said a strategy you may wish to adopt is to have some sort of map (hash of client IP/port) to whatever mechanism you are using to service the socket or some kind of persistent state data, so that it can simulate a continuation of a previous socket (in the same vein as http sessioning). Something along the lines of:
HashMap<Client, State> sessions = ...;
public void server(){
...
while(true){
Socket socket = server.accept();
Client client = new Client(socket);
State s = sessions.get(client);
if(s == null){
s = new State();
sessions.put(client, s);
}
client.setState(s);
service(client);
}
...
}
and you can adjust the map lookup to define what a "session" means within your application (same client IP, same client IP & client port, some sessionid sent over the wire, etc).
If you are just trying to make it possible for the client to reconnect and force the server to "notice" the client is disconnected, the only real way in Java is to try and read/write data, and if it has been shutdown then it should throw an exception. Therefore as was mentioned in your other question you could add some kind of ack/nak feature to your protocol and add some type of check if you believe the client is disconnected (for example if you haven't read any data in the last N milliseconds, send a message the client must echo within M milliseconds, otherwise it is assumed to be disconnected). You can also try isConnected, isInputShutdown, isOutputShutdown, but I have found those to be unreliable in my own code to indicate the socket state, unless you have closed the socket (i.e. the one you are testing on the server).
The situation you describe is impossible. You can't get a new connect request from the same remote IP:port as an existing connection. The client will not permit it to occur.
Based on the comments:
You cannot write the server in a way that it will close a socket it still thinks is connected and automatically accept the new connection, as application code does not have that kind of control over the TCP stack, nor is there a way to reopen a connection.
The chance of the port numbers being the same between your client restarts is very small.
But still, if that happens, the server will note that that you're trying to set up an already connected socket, and refuse your new connection. There's not much else your client can do in this case besides close your socket, create a new one and try to connect again - and another random port will be selected.
additional note, your server should take some form of action to detect and close dead sockets, if all your server does is read incoming data, the "dead" sockets will never be
closed as they will never be detected as dead.(enabling tcp keepalive is one cheap measure to take against dead sockets staying up for months, though it will take a couple of hours to detect them as such by default.)
I have the following problem. My client program monitor for availability of server in the local network (using Bonjour, but it does not rally mater). As soon as a server is "noticed" by the client application, the client tries to create a socket: Socket(serverIP,serverPort);.
At some point the client can loose the server (Bonjour says that server is not visible in the network anymore). So, the client decide to close the socket, because it is not valid anymore.
At some moment the server appears again. So, the client tries to create a new socket associated with this server. But! The server can refuse to create this socket since it (server) has already a socket associated with the client IP and client port. It happens because the socket was closed by the client, not by the server. Can it happen? And if it is the case, how this problem can be solved?
Well, I understand that it is unlikely that the client will try to connect to the server from the same port (client port), since client selects its ports randomly. But it still can happen (just by chance). Right?
Yes, close the socket, as soon as you detect a failure.
The socket will be "stuck" in "close_wait" if not closed properly.
Even if the socket is closed, it's state will be in time_wait for a short period.
However, if You design the application to use a different local port for each new connection, there is no need to wait for the old socket to be closed.
(As you are then creating a completly different socket, since a socket is identified by the remote-ip, remote port, local ip and local port.)
A quick/ dirty illustration of why this can't happen (note the client forcibly uses the same local port in its connection):
public class Server{
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
new Thread(){
java.net.ServerSocket server = new java.net.ServerSocket(12345);
java.util.ArrayList<java.net.Socket> l = new java.util.ArrayList<java.net.Socket>();
public void run() {
try{
while(true){
java.net.Socket client = server.accept();
System.out.println("Connection Accepted: S: "+client.getLocalPort()+", C: "+client.getPort());
l.add(client);
}
}catch(Exception e){e.printStackTrace();}
}
}.start();
}
and a client (replace server address with something valid):
import java.net.InetAddress;
import java.net.Socket;
public class SocketTest {
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
InetAddress server = InetAddress.getByName("192.168.0.256");
InetAddress localhost = InetAddress.getLocalHost();
Socket s = new Socket(server, 12345, localhost, 54321);
System.out.println("Client created socket");
s.close();
s = null;
System.gc();
System.gc();
Thread.sleep(1000);
s = new Socket(server, 12345, localhost, 54321);
System.out.println("Client created second socket");
s.close();
System.exit(55);
}
}
If you start the server and then try to run the client the first connection will succeed, but the second will fail with a "java.net.BindException: Address already in use: connect"
Short answer: yes, you should close socket on both ends.
Although the answer is simple, in reality it may be very hard to detect that the peer has stopped responding if you don't build some ACK/NACK scheme into your client-server protocol.
Even with your protocol ACKs your processing thread may be hanging waiting for ACKs that will never come from the client or vice versa.
If you use Blocking I/O, I would start by setting read timeouts on a socket. Unfortunately, if the peer becomes unresponsive, there is no corresponding time-out for the writes.
One blunt instrument that I found has value in our environment is to create blocking Sockets through java.nio methods and then interrupt the processing thread at configurable intervals.
Interrupting processing thread will close socket, but if you pick the timeout large enough you will know that there is a trouble. We chose this approach because application was written initially with blocking I/O and a cost to transition it to non-blocking was very high.
With the non-blocking I/O, though, you may check at a finer-grained interval the status of your connection and react more intelligently to the slow/unresponsive connections.
Though non-blocking I/O requires a higher upfront investment, I think it will pay better dividends in terms of reliability and better throughput later on.
the client operating system will not allocate the same port to a new socket so soon. there are several mechanism that prevents it. one of which is the TIME_WAIT state that reserves the port for some time after the connection is closed.
I wouldn't worry about it.
if you really need to detect disconnection you will have to implement ping/pong protocol, initiated by both the client and the server.
It sounds like your client is detecting loss of connectivity to the server (using Bonjour), but you don't have the corresponding capability in the other direction.
You're certainly going to want some kind of timeout for inactive connections on the server side as well, otherwise dead connections will hang around forever. Beyond the problem of potential IP address/port # collisions you mention, there's also the fact that the dead connections are consuming OS and application resources (such as open file descriptors)
Conversely, you might also want to consider not being too aggressive in closing a connection from the client side when Bonjour says the service is no longer visible. If you're in a wireless scenario, a transient loss of connectivity isn't that uncommon, and it's possible for a TCP connection to remain open and valid after connectivity is restored (assuming the client still has the same IP address). The optimum strategy depends on what kind of connection you're talking about. If it's a relatively stateless connection where the cost of discarding the connection and retrying is low (like HTTP), then it makes sense to toss the connection at the first sign of trouble. But if it's a long-lived connection with significant user state (like an SSH login session), it makes sense to try harder to keep the connection alive.
If you close server socket only in case of blocking socket then client socket will be closed but not vice versa.
otherwise it would be better socket in both end. Because socket is a heavy weigt for you system. It will use a local port and a remote port of your system forever.
Thanks
Sunil Kumar Sahoo