I have written a program in Java which creates a socket connection for a simple online game. The server is multiclient and has a list of users logged. When I close the client it sends to the server a message to log out the user. I also want that when the client is terminated with the "terminate" button of Eclipse (or with Windows task manager) the client sends the same message. I tried with a ShootdownHook but it does not work. Any idea?
Thanks.
In order to have a robust system, you will at some point need to implement a heartbeat mechanism that allows the server to close connections. For example, if a client hasn't set a heartbeat in the last 30 seconds, then close the connection. Consider the case where the network between client and server goes down... or the machine the client is running on dies an ugly death. In those cases, you cannot rely on the client's logout message getting to the server.
Having said that, I suspect that shutdown hook is too late to do actual network IO. I have successfully used shutdown hooks to close connections. So you will need to have a more formal shutdown where the message is sent before other shutdown activity -- especially closing connections -- is initiated.
Nothing you can on the client side can act in the event of the red square in Eclipse. It terminates the jvm 'with extreme prejudice' -- no code runs. No hooks, no nothing.
You have, as #Dilum explained, to cope on the server side.
Related
I have classic http client/server application where the server serves the clients data at their will but also performs some kind of call-backs to the list of clients' addresses it has. My two questions are :
1- How would the server know if a client is down (the client did not disconnect but the connection got suddenly interrupted) ?
2- Is there a way to know from the server-side if the process at client-side listening on the call-back port is still up (i.e. client call-back socket is still open) ?
1- How would the server know if a client is down (the client did not disconnect but the connection got suddenly interrupted) ?
Option #1: direct communication
Client tells server "I'm alive" at a periodic interval. You could make your client to ping your server at a configurable interval, and if the server does not receive the signal for a certain time, it'll mark the client as down. Client could even tell server more info(e.g. It's status) in each heartbeat if necessary, this is also the way used in many distributed systems(e.g. Hadoop/Hbase).
Option #2: distributed coordination service
You could treat all clients connected to a server as a group, and use a 3rd party distributed coordination service like Zookeeper to facilitate the membership management. Client registers itself to Zookeeper as a new member of the group right after booting up, and leaves the group if it's down. Zookeeper notifies the server whenever the membership changes.
2- Is there a way to know from the server-side if the process at client-side listening on the call-back port is still up (i.e. client call-back socket is still open) ?
I think this can only be done by the way Option #1 listed above. It could be either the way clients tell server "My callback port is OK" at a fixed interval, or the server asks clients "Are your callback port OK?" and wait its response at a fixed interval
You would have to establish some sort of protocol; and simply spoken: the server keeps track of "messages" that it tried to sent to clients.
If that "send" is acknowledged, fine; if not: then the server might do a limited number of retries; and then regard that client as "gone"; and then drop any other messages for that client.
1- How would the server know if a client is down (the client did not disconnect but the connection got suddenly interrupted) ?
A write to the client will fail.
2- Is there a way to know from the server-side if the process at client-side listening on the call-back port is still up (i.e. client call-back socket is still open
A write to the client will fail.
The write won't necessarily fail immediately, due to TCP buffering, but the write will eventually provoke retries and retry timeouts that will cause a subsequent read or write to fail.
In Java the failure will manifest itself as an IOException: connection reset.
I have a server setup using MINA version 2.
I don't have much experience with sockets and tcp.
The problem is if I make a connection to my server, and then unplug my internet and close the connection, (Server doesn't get notification of the connection being closed) the server will forever think that my connection is still active and valid.
The server will continue to send messages to my connection, and doesn't throw any exceptions even though there is nothing on my computer binded to the local port.
How can I test that the connection still exists?
I've tried running MINA logging in debug mode, and logging the
IoSession.isConnected() IoSession.isActive IoSession.isClosing
They always return true, true, false. Also, in debug mode, there was no useful information stating that the connection was lost. It just logged the regular "sent message" stuff, as if there was nothing wrong.
From using Flash actionscript, I have had experiences where flash will throw errors that it's operating on an invalid socket. That leads me to believe that it's saying the socket on the server is no longer valid for the connection. So in other words if flash can detect invalid sockets, a Java server should be able to detect it too correct?
If there is truly no way to detect dead connections, I can always setup a connection keep alive routine where the client is constantly sending an "I'm here" message to the server, and the server closes sessions that havent had an incoming message for a period of seconds.
EDIT: After learning that "sockets" are private and never shared over the network I managed to find better results for my issue and I found this SO thread.
Java socket API: How to tell if a connection has been closed?
Unfortunately
IOException 'Connection reset by peer' Doesn't occur when I write to
the IoSession in MINA.
Edit:
Is there any way at all in Java to detect when an ACK to a TCP packet was not received after sending a packet? An ACK Timeout?
Edit:
Yet apparantly, my computer should send a RST to the server? According to this answer. https://stackoverflow.com/a/1434592/4425643
But that seems like a bad way of port scanning. Is this how port scanning works? Port scanners send data to a port and the victim's service responds with a RST? Sorry I think I need a new question for all this. But it's odd that MINA doesn't throw connection reset by peer when it sends data. So then my computer doesn't send a RST.
The concept of socket or connection in Internet protocols is an illusion. It's a convenient abstraction that is provided to you by the operating system and the TCP stack, but in reality, it's all fake.
Under the hood, everything on the Internet takes the form of individual packets.
From the perspective of a computer sending packets to another computer, there is no built-in way to know whether that computer is actually receiving the packets, unless that computer (or some other computer in between, like a router) tells you that the packets were, or were not, received.
From the perspective of a computer expecting to receive packets from another computer, there is no way to know in advance whether any packets are coming, will ever come, or in what order -- until they actually arrive. And once they arrive, just the fact that you received one packet does not mean you'll receive any more in the future.
That's why I say connections or sockets are an illusion. The way that the operating system determines whether a connection is "alive" or not, is simply by waiting an arbitrary amount of time. After that amount of time -- called a timeout -- if one side of the TCP connection doesn't hear back from the other side, it will just assume that the other end has been disconnected, and arbitrarily set the connection status to "closed", "dead" or "terminated" ("timed out").
So:
Your server has no clue that you've pulled the plug on your Internet connection. It has no way of knowing that.
Your server's TCP stack has been configured a certain way to wait an arbitrary amount of time before "giving up" on the other end if no response is received. If this timeout is set to a very large period of time, it may appear to you that your server is hanging on to connections that are no longer valid. If this bothers you, you should look into ways to decrease the timeout interval.
Analogy: If you are on a phone call with someone, and there's a very real risk of them being hurt or killed, and you are talking to them and getting them to answer, and then the phone suddenly goes dead..... Well, how long do you wait? At what point do you assume the other person has been hurt or killed? If you wait a couple milliseconds, in most cases that's too short of a "timeout", because the other person could just be listening and thinking of how to respond. If you wait for 50 years, the person might be long dead by then. So you have to set a reasonable timeout value that makes sense.
What you want is a KeepAlive, heartbeat, or ping.
As per #allquicatic's answer, there's no completely reliable built-in method to do this in TCP. You'll have to implement a method to explicitly ask the client "Are you still there?" and await an answer for a specified amount of time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keepalive
A keepalive (KA) is a message sent by one device to another to check that the link between the two is operating, or to prevent this link from being broken.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartbeat_(computing)
In computer science, a heartbeat is a periodic signal generated by hardware or software to indicate normal operation or to synchronize other parts of a system.[1] Usually a heartbeat is sent between machines at a regular interval in the order of seconds. If a heartbeat isn't received for a time—usually a few heartbeat intervals—the machine that should have sent the heartbeat is assumed to have failed.[2]
The easiest way to implement one is to periodically send an arbitrary piece of data - e.g. a null command. A properly programmed TCP stack will timeout if an ACK is not received within its specified timeout period, and then you'll get a IOException 'Connection reset by peer'
You may have to manually tune the TCP parameters, or implement your own functionality if you want more fine-grained control than the default timeout.
The TCP framework is not exposed to Java. And Java does not provide a means to edit TCP configuration that exists on the OS level.
This means we cannot use TCP keep alive in Java efficiently because we can't change its default configuration values. Furthermore we can't set the timeout for not receiving an ACK for a message sent. (Learn about TCP to discover that every message sent will wait for an ACK (acknowledgement) from the peer that the message has been successfully delivered.)
Java can only throw exceptions for cases such as a timeout for not completing the TCP handshake in a custom amount of time, a 'Connection Reset by Peer' exception when a RST is received from the peer, and an exception for an ACK timeout after whatever period of time that may be.
To dependably track connection status, you must implement your own Ping/Pong, Keep Alive, or Heartbeat system as #Dog suggested in his answer. (The server must poll the client to see if it's still there, or the client has to continuosly let the server know it's still there.)
For example, configure your client to send a small packet every 10 seconds.
In MINA, you can set a session reader idle timeout, which will send an event when a session reader has been idle for a period of time. You can terminate that connection on delivery of this event. Setting the reader timeout to be a bit longer than the small packet interval will account for random high latency between the client and server. For example, a reader idle timeout of 15 seconds would be lenient in this case.
If your server will rarely experience session idling, and you think you can save bandwidth by polling the client when the session has gone idle, look into using the Apache MINA Keep Alive Filter.
https://mina.apache.org/mina-project/apidocs/org/apache/mina/filter/keepalive/KeepAliveFilter.html
I am using Elasticsearch 1.5.1 and Tomcat 7. Web application creates a TCP client instance as Singleton during server startup through Spring Framework.
Just noticed that I failed to close the client during server shutdown.
Through analysis on various tools like VisualVm, JConsole, MAT in Eclipse, it is evident that threads created by the elasticsearch client are live even after server(tomcat) shutdown.
Note: after introducing client.close() via Context Listener destroy methods, the threads are killed gracefully.
But my query here is,
how to check the memory occupied by these live threads?
Memory leak impact due to this thread?
We have got few Out of memory:Perm gen errors in PROD. This might be a reason but still I would like to measure and provide stats for this.
Any suggestions/help please.
Typically clients run in a different process than the services they communicate with. For example, I can open a web page in a web browser, and then shutdown the webserver, and the client will remain open.
This has to do with the underlying design choices of TCP/IP. Glossing over the details, under most cases a client only detects it's server is gone during the next request to the server. (Again generally speaking) it does not continually poll the server to see if it is alive, nor does the server generally send a "please disconnect" message on shutting down.
The reason that clients don't generally poll servers is because it allows the server to handle more clients. With a polling approach, the server is limited by the number of clients running, but without a polling approach, it is limited by the number of clients actively communicating. This allows it to support more clients because many of the running clients aren't actively communicating.
The reason that servers typically don't send an "I'm shutting down" message is because many times the server goes down uncontrollably (power outage, operating system crash, fire, short circuit, etc) This means that an protocol which requires such a message will leave the clients in a corrupt state if the server goes down in an uncontrolled manner.
So losing a connection is really a function of a failed request to the server. The client will still typically be running until it makes the next attempt to do something.
Likewise, opening a connection to a server often does nothing most of the time too. To validate that you really have a working connection to a server, you must ask it for some data and get a reply. Most protocols do this automatically to simplify the logic; but, if you ever write your own service, if you don't ask for data from the server, even if the API says you have a good "connection", you might not. The API can report back a good "connections" when you have all the stuff configured on your machine successfully. To really know if it works 100% on the other machine, you need to ask for data (and get it).
Finally servers sometimes lose their clients, but because they don't waste bandwidth chattering with clients just to see if they are there, often the servers will put a "timeout" on the client connection. Basically if the server doesn't hear from the client in 10 minutes (or the configured value) then it closes the cached connection information for the client (recreating the connection information as necessary if the client comes back).
From your description it is not clear which of the scenarios you might be seeing, but hopefully this general knowledge will help you understand why after closing one side of a connection, the other side of a connection might still think it is open for a while.
There are ways to configure the network connection to report closures more immediately, but I would avoid using them, unless you are willing to lose a lot of your network bandwidth to keep-alive messages and don't want your servers to respond as quickly as they could.
By guarantee I mean the commonly understood feature of TCP that if a packet gets damaged or lost, then it will go unacknowledged and be resent.
Consider the situation (in java) where the sender sends some data, and immediately closes the socket. If that data goes missing or corrupts itself en-route, will the reciever never be able to get it? Or does the senders socket wait and not actually close until all of the appropriate ACKs have been read back in?
I've tried tracing the socket.close() method back myself, but its hard as not only are there are many internal socket implementations but the functionality splits down several paths with ambiguous method names.
Most resource management happens at the OS level below the JVM.
In the case the of TCP protocol it is completely managed by the OS what happens is
Application tells JVM to send data on TCP Stream
JVM access OS functions to perform data send task.
OS manages TCP protocol.
data gets sent over the network.
The data gets copied out of the JVM into the OS memory space so even if the JVM aborted
the TCP contracts should still be handled appropriately.
If the JVM halts or requests the OS to close the socket it should hold the socket
open until the other endpoint acknowledges all data has arrived or the other
endpoint closes.
As the JVM only interfaces into the OS you won't see this management code in the Java
libraries, they assume that management is handled correctly by the OS and the JVM.
Consider the situation (in java) where the sender sends some data, and immediately closes the socket. If that data goes missing or corrupts itself en-route, will the reciever never be able to get it?
TCP will retransmit, at least until its retry timers or counters expire, after which it would give up and rest the connection.
Or does the senders socket wait and not actually close until all of the appropriate ACKs have been read back in?
Yes. This takes place in TCP, not Java.
You should use Socket.shutdownOutput() and then wait for the closing event, as if the remote host closed the connection. This method is a wrapper on the shutdown() C socket function, which accepts a parameter to decide wich network flow to close.
I have a typical java client and a server. The client sends some request to the server and waits for the response. The client reads up to say 100 bytes of data from the contained input stream into an array of bytes. It waits for the complete response of 100 bytes to be read within a specified timeout period of say 3 secs. The problem here is to identify if the server went down or crashed while/before writing the response. Basically, we need to identify if the socket was broken or the peer disconnected for some reason. Is there a way to identify this?
How to identify a broken socket connection in Java immediately?
You can't detect it immediately, in Java or any other language. TCP/IP doesn't know, so Java can't know. The only sure way to detect a broken TCP connection is by writing to it and catching IOExceptions, and they won't happen immediately.
The best way to identity the connection is down is to timeout the connection. i.e. you expect a response in a given amount of time and flag if that response does not come as you expect.
When you have a graceful disconnection (.e.g the other end calls close()) the read on the connection will let you know once the buffer has been drained.
However, if there some other type of failure, you might not be notified until the OS times out the connection (e.g. after 3 minutes) and indeed, you may want to keep the connection. e.g. if you pull the network cable out for 10 seconds and put it back in, that doesn't need to be a failure.
EDIT: I don't believe its a good idea to be too aggressive in automatically handling connection/service "failures". This is usually better handled by a planned fix to the system, based on investigation of the true cause. e.g. increased bandwidth, redundant connectivity, faster servers, code fixes.
If connection is broken abnormally, you will receieve IOException when reading; that normally happens quite fast, but there is no guarantees about time - all depends on the OS, network hardware, etc. If remote end gracefully closes the socket, you'll read -1 as next byte.
Assuming everything else works, if the remote peer - the TCP server - was killed then the TCP client will normally receive a TCP RST (reset) and you'll get an IOException in your client application.
However, there are lots of other things that can go wrong besides a process being killed. Basically anything on the network path between the two processes: a cable is yanked, a router dies, a firewall dies, etc. All of this will not immediately be detected.
For the above reasons the general rule is - as pointed out in the answer from EJP - that a broken connection can only be detected by writing to it. This is why it is always recommended that a TCP client and TCP server exchange some type of heartbeat messages at regular intervals. There are different ways to do this. I like best the method where the TCP client will - in the absence of data being received from the TCP server - send a heartbeat message to the server and expect a reply back within a certain time period. This way heartbeat messages will only be sent when really needed.
A sub-optimal approach - if you cannot implement true heartbeating - is to always read with a timeout. Set the timeout on the socket and then catch java.net.SocketTimeoutException. This will allow you to know that no data has been received on socket during x milliseconds.
It should be mentioned that there's one scenario where you don't have to use heartbeating, nor using the socket timeout: if the TCP client and the TCP server communicate over a loopback interface then a broken connection will always be propagated to both the TCP client application and the TCP server application. This is because, in this case, there's really no network infrastructure between the two processes. So if you have an existing application which isn't well-designed with respect to its TCP communication (i.e. it doesn't implement some form of heartbeating or at least reading with a timeout), then as a last resort you may 'fix' the problem by moving the two application onto the same host and let them communicate over the loopback interface.