Search Results

Search found 1680 results on 68 pages for 'berkeley sockets'.

Page 4/68 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Sync Vs. Async Sockets Performance in C#

    - by Michael Covelli
    Everything that I read about sockets in .NET says that the asynchronous pattern gives better performance (especially with the new SocketAsyncEventArgs which saves on the allocation). I think this makes sense if we're talking about a server with many client connections where its not possible to allocate one thread per connection. Then I can see the advantage of using the ThreadPool threads and getting async callbacks on them. But in my app, I'm the client and I just need to listen to one server sending market tick data over one tcp connection. Right now, I create a single thread, set the priority to Highest, and call Socket.Receive() with it. My thread blocks on this call and wakes up once new data arrives. If I were to switch this to an async pattern so that I get a callback when there's new data, I see two issues The threadpool threads will have default priority so it seems they will be strictly worse than my own thread which has Highest priority. I'll still have to send everything through a single thread at some point. Say that I get N callbacks at almost the same time on N different threadpool threads notifying me that there's new data. The N byte arrays that they deliver can't be processed on the threadpool threads because there's no guarantee that they represent N unique market data messages because TCP is stream based. I'll have to lock and put the bytes into an array anyway and signal some other thread that can process what's in the array. So I'm not sure what having N threadpool threads is buying me. Am I thinking about this wrong? Is there a reason to use the Async patter in my specific case of one client connected to one server?

    Read the article

  • Sync Vs. Async Sockets Performance in .NET

    - by Michael Covelli
    Everything that I read about sockets in .NET says that the asynchronous pattern gives better performance (especially with the new SocketAsyncEventArgs which saves on the allocation). I think this makes sense if we're talking about a server with many client connections where its not possible to allocate one thread per connection. Then I can see the advantage of using the ThreadPool threads and getting async callbacks on them. But in my app, I'm the client and I just need to listen to one server sending market tick data over one tcp connection. Right now, I create a single thread, set the priority to Highest, and call Socket.Receive() with it. My thread blocks on this call and wakes up once new data arrives. If I were to switch this to an async pattern so that I get a callback when there's new data, I see two issues The threadpool threads will have default priority so it seems they will be strictly worse than my own thread which has Highest priority. I'll still have to send everything through a single thread at some point. Say that I get N callbacks at almost the same time on N different threadpool threads notifying me that there's new data. The N byte arrays that they deliver can't be processed on the threadpool threads because there's no guarantee that they represent N unique market data messages because TCP is stream based. I'll have to lock and put the bytes into an array anyway and signal some other thread that can process what's in the array. So I'm not sure what having N threadpool threads is buying me. Am I thinking about this wrong? Is there a reason to use the Async patter in my specific case of one client connected to one server?

    Read the article

  • C# Accepting sockets in async fasion - best practices

    - by psulek
    What is the best way to accept new sockets in async way. First way: while (!abort && listener.Server.IsBound) { acceptedSocketEvent.Reset(); listener.BeginAcceptSocket(AcceptConnection, null); bool signaled = false; do { signaled = acceptedSocketEvent.WaitOne(1000, false); } while (!signaled && !abort && listener.Server.IsBound); } where AcceptConnection should be: private void AcceptConnection(IAsyncResult ar) { // Signal the main thread to continue. acceptedSocketEvent.Set(); Socket socket = listener.EndAcceptSocket(ar); // continue to receive data and so on... .... } or Second way: listener.BeginAcceptSocket(AcceptConnection, null); while (!abort && listener.Server.IsBound) { Thread.Sleep(500); } and AcceptConnection will be: private void AcceptConnection(IAsyncResult ar) { Socket socket = listener.EndAcceptSocket(ar); // begin accepting next socket listener.BeginAcceptSocket(AcceptConnection, null); // continue to receive data and so on... .... } What is your prefered way and why?

    Read the article

  • UDP sockets in ad hoc network (Ubuntu 9.10)

    - by Ekhiotz
    Hi! I am using BSD sockets in Ubuntu 9.10 to send UDP packets in broadcast with the following code: sock_fd = socket(PF_INET,SOCK_DGRAM,IPPROTO_UDP); //sock_fd=socket(AF_INET,SOCK_DGRAM,0); receiver_addr.sin_family = PF_INET; //does not send with broadcast in ad hoc receiver_addr.sin_addr.s_addr = htonl(INADDR_BROADCAST); inet_aton("169.254.255.255",&receiver_addr.sin_addr); receiver_addr.sin_port = htons(port); int broadcast = 1; // this call is what allows broadcast packets to be sent: if (setsockopt(sock_fd, SOL_SOCKET, SO_BROADCAST, &broadcast, sizeof broadcast) == -1) { perror("setsockopt (SO_BROADCAST)"); exit(1); } ret=sendto(sock_fd, packet, size, 0,(struct sockaddr*)&receiver_addr,sizeof(receiver_addr)); Note that is not all the code, it is only to have an idea. The program sends all the data with INADDR_BROADCAST if I am connected to an infrastructure wireless network. However, if my laptop is connected to an ad-hoc network, it is able to receive all the data, but not to send it. I have solved the problem using the 169.254.255.255 broadcast address, but I would like to know what is going on. Thank you in advance!

    Read the article

  • Transferring HashMap between client and server using Sockets (JAVA)

    - by sar
    I am working on a JAVA project in which there are multiple terminals. These terminals act as client and servers. For example if there are 3 terminals A,B and C.Then at any given point in time one of them say A, will be a client making broadcast request. The other two terminals, B and C, will reply. I am using sockets to make them communicate. Once the reply is received from all the other terminals A will check the pool of channels to see if any one of the channel is free. It takes up the free channel and making it availabilty false. The channelpool is implemented using HashMAp: HashMap channelpool = new HashMap(); channelpool = 1=true, 2=true, 3=false, 4=true, 5=true, 6=true, 7=true, 8=true, 9=true, 10=true So initially all the channels are true, any terminal can take any channel. But once the channel is taken it is set to false for the period of use and then reset to true. Now this Hashmap has to be shared among the distributed terminals. Also it should be kept up to date. I can not used a shared resource among the terminals to store the HashMap.Can someone tell me an easy way to transfer the HashMap between the terminals. I will appreciate if someone could point me to a website which discusses this.

    Read the article

  • Using Threads to Handle Sockets

    - by user340468
    I am working on a java program that is essentially a chat room. This is an assignment for class so no code please, I am just having some issues determining the most feasible way to handle what I need to do. I have a server program already setup for a single client using threads to get the data input stream and a thread to handle sending on the data output stream. What I need to do now is create a new thread for each incoming request. My thought is to create a linked list to contain either the client sockets, or possibly the thread. Where I am stumbling is figuring out how to handle sending the messages out to all the clients. If I have a thread for each incoming message how can I then turn around and send that out to each client socket. I'm thinking that if I had a linkedlist of the clientsockets I could then traverse the list and send it out to each one, but then I would have to create a dataoutputstream each time. Could I create a linkedlist of dataoutputstreams? Sorry if it sounds like I'm rambling but I don't want to just start coding this, it could get messy without a good plan. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Actionscript flex sockets and telnet

    - by MAC
    I am trying to make a flex application where it gets data from a telnet connection and I am running into a weird problem. To give a brief introduction, i want to read data from a process that exposes it through a socket. So if in the shell i type telnet localhost 8651i receive the xml and then the connection is closed (I get the following Connection closed by foreign host.) Anyway i found a simple tutorial online for flex that essentially is a telnet client and one would expect it to work but everything follows Murphy's laws and nothing ever works! Now i have messages being printed in every event handler and all places that i can think off. When i connect to the socket nothing happens, no event handler is triggered even the connect or close handler and if i do the following the socket.connected returns false! I get no errors, try catch raises no exception. I am at a loss as to whats going wrong? socket.connect(serverURL, portNumber); msg(socket.connected.toString()); Is there something about telnet that i do not know and its causing this to not work. Whats more interesting is why none of the events get fired. Another interesting thing is that i have some python code that does the same thing and its able to get the xml back! The following is the python code that works! def getStats(host, port): sock = socket.socket() sock.connect((host, port)) res = sock.recv(1024*1024*1024, socket.MSG_WAITALL) sock.close() return statFunc(res) So i ask you whats going wrong!!!!!! Is there some inherent problem with how flex handles sockets?

    Read the article

  • java Sockets and Threads Problem

    - by vs4vijay
    I am doin a Some Socket Programing Stuff in Java.. Here i have created a button(Create Server)..and when i click it ,it starts server...but i want to change the button name to (Stop Server) after Starting the server... so i did this.. but when i press start server it starts and the button name remains the same... and when a client gets connected to it ,then it change the name to stop server... tell me whats the wrong with this code?? Here is My a SomePart Of Code... public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent ex) { if(ex.getActionCommand() == "CreateServer") { bt1.setText("Stop Server"); bt2.setEnabled(false); b5.setText("Server Started On Port " + tf2.getText()); System.out.println("Server started 1"); create(Integer.parseInt(tf2.getText())); //my func. to create server System.out.println("Server started 2"); } } and my create() fucn. contains some sockets and thread...so tell me what the problem...

    Read the article

  • PHP Sockets Errors (connection refused and No such file or directory)

    - by Purefan
    Hello all, I am writing a server app (broadcaster) and a client (relayer). Several relayers can connect to the broadcaster at the same time, send information and the broadcaster will redirect the message to a matching relayer (for example relayer1 sends to broadcaster who sends to relayer43, relayer2 - broadcaster - relayer73...) The server part is working as I have tested it with a telnet client and although its at this point only an echo server it works. Both relayer and broadcaster sit on the same server so I am using AF_UNIX sockets, both files are in different folders though. I have tried two approaches for the relayer and both have failed, the first one is using socket_create: public function __construct() { // where is the socket server? $this->_sHost = 'tcp://127.0.0.1'; $this->_iPort = 11225; // open a client connection $this->_hSocket = socket_create(AF_UNIX, SOCK_STREAM, 0); echo 'Attempting to connect to '.$this->_sHost.' on port '.$this->_iPort .'...'; $result = socket_connect($this->_hSocket, $this->_sHost, $this->_iPort); if ($result === false) { echo "socket_connect() failed.\nReason: ($result) " . socket_strerror(socket_last_error($this->_hSocket)) . "\n"; } else { echo "OK.\n"; } This returns "Warning: socket_connect(): unable to connect [2]: No such file or directory in relayer.class.php on line 27" and (its running from command line) it often also returns a segmentation fault. The second approach is using pfsockopen: public function __construct() { // where is the socket server? $this->_sHost = 'tcp://127.0.0.1'; $this->_iPort = 11225; // open a client connection $fp = pfsockopen ($this->_sHost, $this->_iPort, $errno, $errstr); if (!$fp) { $result = "Error: could not open socket connection"; } else { // get the welcome message fgets ($fp, 1024); // write the user string to the socket fputs ($fp, 'Message ' . __LINE__); // get the result $result .= fgets ($fp, 1024); // close the connection fputs ($fp, "END"); fclose ($fp); // trim the result and remove the starting ? $result = trim($result); $result = substr($result, 2); // now print it to the browser } which only returns the error "Warning: pfsockopen(): unable to connect to tcp://127.0.0.1:11225 (Connection refused) in relayer.class.php on line 33 " In all tests I have tried with different host names, 127.0.0.1, localhost, tcp://127.0.0.1, 192.168.0.199, tcp://192.168.0.199, none of it has worked. Any ideas on this?

    Read the article

  • C++ Multithreading with pthread is blocking (including sockets)

    - by Sebastian Büttner
    I am trying to implement a multi threaded application with pthread. I did implement a thread class which looks like the following and I call it later twice (or even more), but it seems to block instead of execute the threads parallel. Here is what I got until now: The Thread Class is an abstract class which has the abstract method "exec" which should contain the thread code in a derive class (I did a sample of this, named DerivedThread) Thread.hpp #ifndef THREAD_H_ #define THREAD_H_ #include <pthread.h> class Thread { public: Thread(); void start(); void join(); virtual int exec() = 0; int exit_code(); private: static void* thread_router(void* arg); void exec_thread(); pthread_t pth_; int code_; }; #endif /* THREAD_H_ */ And Thread.cpp #include <iostream> #include "Thread.hpp" /*****************************/ using namespace std; Thread::Thread(): code_(0) { cout << "[Thread] Init" << endl; } void Thread::start() { cout << "[Thread] Created Thread" << endl; pthread_create( &pth_, NULL, Thread::thread_router, reinterpret_cast<void*>(this)); } void Thread::join() { cout << "[Thread] Join Thread" << endl; pthread_join(pth_, NULL); } int Thread::exit_code() { return code_; } void Thread::exec_thread() { cout << "[Thread] Execute" << endl; code_ = exec(); } void* Thread::thread_router(void* arg) { cout << "[Thread] exec_thread function in thread" << endl; reinterpret_cast<Thread*>(arg)->exec_thread(); return NULL; } DerivedThread.hpp #include "Thread.hpp" class DerivedThread : public Thread { public: DerivedThread(); virtual ~DerivedThread(); int exec(); void Close() = 0; DerivedThread.cpp [...] #include "DerivedThread.cpp" [...] int DerivedThread::exec() { //code to be executed do { cout << "Thread executed" << endl; usleep(1000000); } while (true); //dummy, just to let it run for a while } [...] Basically, I am calling this like the here: DerivedThread *thread; cout << "Creating Thread" << endl; thread = new DerivedThread(); cout << "Created thread, starting..." << endl; thread->start(); cout << "Started thread" << endl; cout << "Creating 2nd Thread" << endl; thread = new DerivedThread(); cout << "Created 2nd thread, starting..." << endl; thread->start(); cout << "Started 2nd thread" << endl; What is working great if I am only starting one of these Threads , but if I start multiple which should run together (not synced, only parallel) . But I discovered, that the thread is created, then as it tries to execute it (via start) the problem seems to block until the thread has closed. After that the next Thread is processed. I thought that pthread would do it unblocked for me, so what did I wrong? A sample output might be: Creating Thread [Thread] Thread Init Created thread, starting... [Thread] Created thread [Thread] exec_thread function in thread [Thread] Execute Thread executed Thread executed Thread executed Thread executed Thread executed Thread executed Thread executed .... Until Thread 1 is not terminated, a Thread 2 won't be created not executed. The process above is executed in an other class. Just for the information: I am trying to create a multi threaded server. The concept is like this: MultiThreadedServer Class has a main loop, like this one: ::inet::ServerSock *sock; //just a simple self made wrapper class for sockets DerivedThread *thread; for (;;) { sock = new ::inet::ServerSock(); this->Socket->accept( *sock ); cout << "Creating Thread" << endl; //Threads (according to code sample above) thread = new DerivedThread(sock); //I did not mentoine the parameter before as it was not neccesary, in fact, I pass the socket handle with the connected socket to the thread cout << "Created thread, starting..." << endl; thread->start(); cout << "Started thread" << endl; } So I thought that this would loop over and over and wait for new connections to accept. and when a new client arrives, I am creating a new thread and give the thread the connected socket as a parameter. In the DerivedThread::exec I am doing the handling for the connected client. Like: [...] do { [...] if (this-sock_-read( Buffer, sizeof(PacketStruc) ) 0) { cout << "[Handler_Base] Recv Packet" << endl; //handle the packet } else { Connected = false; } delete Buffer; } while ( Connected ); So I loop in the created thread as long as the client keeps the connection. I think, that the socket may cause the blocking behaviour. Edit: I figured out, that it is not the read() loop in the DerivedThread Class as I simply replaced it with a loop over a simple cout-usleep part. It did also only execute the first one and after first thread finished, the 2nd one was executed. Many thanks and best regards, Sebastian

    Read the article

  • Berkeley DB Java Edition 4.0.103 Available

    - by charles.lamb
    We'd like to let you know that JE 4.0.103 is now at http://www.oracle.com/technology/software/products/berkeley-db/je/index.html. The patch release contains both small features and bug fixes, many of which were prompted by feedback on this forum. Some items to note: New CacheMode values for more control over cache policies, and new statistics to enable better interpretation of caching behavior. These are just one initial part of our continuing work in progress to make JE caching more efficient. Fixes for proper cache utilization calculations when using the -XX:+UseCompressedOops JVM option. A variety of other bug fixes. There is no file format or API changes. As always, we encourage users to move promptly to this new release.

    Read the article

  • JavaOne 2012 session slides: "Dev Berkeley DB & DB Mobile Server for Java Embedded Tech"

    - by hinkmond
    The latest JavaOne 2012 slides are available on the Web. Here's the presentation that Eric Jensen and I did on "Developing Berkeley DB & DB Mobile Server for Java Embedded Technology". Enjoy! See: Click here for the slides in a new window It was fun to present this talk at JavaOne 2012 with Eric. We had some good questions from the audience. Let me know in the Comments if you have any further questions. I'll pass all the good questions to Eric and keep the bad questions for myself. Hinkmond

    Read the article

  • Using multiple sockets, is non-blocking or blocking with select better?

    - by JPhi1618
    Lets say I have a server program that can accept connections from 10 (or more) different clients. The clients send data at random which is received by the server, but it is certain that at least one client will be sending data every update. The server cannot wait for information to arrive because it has other processing to do. Aside from using asynchronous sockets, I see two options: Make all sockets non-blocking. In a loop, call recv on each socket and allow it to fail with WSAEWOULDBLOCK if there is no data available and if I happen to get some data, then keep it. Leave the sockets as blocking. Add all sockets to a fd_set and call select(). If the return value is non-zero (which it will be most of the time), loop through all the sockets to find the appropriate number of readable sockets with FD_ISSET() and only call recv on the readable sockets. The first option will create a lot more calls to the recv function. The second method is a bigger pain from a programming perspective because of all the FD_SET and FD_ISSET looping. Which method (or another method) is preferred? Is avoiding the overhead on letting recv fail on a non-blocking socket worth the hassle of calling select()? I think I understand both methods and I have tried both with success, but I don't know if one way is considered better or optimal. Only knowledgeable replies please!

    Read the article

  • C# Sockets Buffer Overflow No Error

    - by Michael Covelli
    I have one thread that is receiving data over a socket like this: while (sock.Connected) { // Receive Data (Block if no data) recvn = sock.Receive(recvb, 0, rlen, SocketFlags.None, out serr); if (recvn <= 0 || sock == null || !sock.Connected) { OnError("Error In Receive, recvn <= 0 || sock == null || !sock.Connected"); return; } else if (serr != SocketError.Success) { OnError("Error In Receive, serr = " + serr); return; } // Copy Data Into Tokenizer tknz.Read(recvb, recvn); // Parse Data while (tknz.MoveToNext()) { try { ParseMessageAndRaiseEvents(tknz.Buffer(), tknz.Length); } catch (System.Exception ex) { string BadMessage = ByteArrayToStringClean(tknz.Buffer(), tknz.Length); string msg = string.Format("Exception in MDWrapper Parsing Message, Ex = {0}, Msg = {1}", ex.Message, BadMessage); OnError(msg); } } } And I kept seeing occasional errors in my parsing function indicating that the message wasn't valid. At first, I thought that my tokenizer class was broken. But after logging all the incoming bytes to the tokenizer, it turns out that the raw bytes in recvb weren't a valid message. I didn't think that corrupted data like this was possible with a tcp data stream. I figured it had to be some type of buffer overflow so I set sock.ReceiveBufferSize = 1024 * 1024 * 8; and the parsing error never, ever occurs in testing (it happens often enough to replicate if I don't change the ReceiveBufferSize). But my question is: why wasn't I seeing an exception or an error state or something if the socket's internal buffer was overflowing before I changed this buffer size?

    Read the article

  • BSD Sockets don't behave in a iPhone 3G environment

    - by Kyle
    I noticed that many times while developing for an iPhone 3G, BSD socket functions will simply fail. I also noticed at the time, the 3G antenna wasn't even ON, nor was there WIFI Access to back up the network call (So it seems ridiculous that it doesn't turn on to support the network request).. This information was verified with an app from Apple in the SDK called Connectivity Test, or something of the sort. Basically if you load Safari or something, then quickly load up the App it would be fine.. Of course that's not ideal. Apparently, to apple, gethostbyname() or something of the sort is by no means a reason to turn on the Antenna. I contacted Apple about this, and they said that the BSD functions do not switch the Antenna on, but calling all of the Objective-C CFNetwork functions do. I want portable code, so is there a way to keep my existing BSD setup? I really dislike coding in Objective-C, so if anyone knows a work around, that would be awesome.

    Read the article

  • libevent buffered events and half-closed sockets

    - by Vi
    It is simple to implement a port mapper using bufferevent_* functions of libevent. However, the documentation states that "This file descriptor is not allowed to be a pipe(2)". Will libevent work correctly if I shutdown the socket in one direction shutdown(socket, SHUT_WR);? I expect it to discard remaining data in the buffer and not write there anymore, but continue reading from socket and calling a read handler.

    Read the article

  • NSStream sockets missing data

    - by Chris T.
    I am trying to pull some sample data from FreeDB as a proof of concept, but I am having a tough time retrieving all of the data off the incoming stream (I am only getting the last bits for the final query listed here (if handshakeCode = 3) I think this may be something with the threading on the main runloop, but I am not sure. Odd thing is when the buffer size is larger than 1-2 bytes (which works as expected), I seem to be losing access to the data programmatically (the totalOutput variable on the first set of data is incomplete). I set up a packet capture, and it looks like those 1024 bytes are coming across the wire, but the app just isn't working with it. It looks like the next event is coming through and basically taking over. I tried using an NSLock to no avail as well. If I drop the buffer size down to 1 or 2, things seem to be reading just fine. This is probably obvious to someone who does this all the time, but this is my first foray into this with something I am familiar with, technology wise in other languages / platforms. The following code will show you what is happening. Run with the buffer set to 1024, and you will see a short final string, but once you set it to 1, you will see the amount of data I was expecting (I was even expecting it to be split, so that's not a big worry) #import <Foundation/Foundation.h> #import <Cocoa/Cocoa.h> //STACK OVERFLOW CODE: @interface stackoverflow : NSObject <NSStreamDelegate> { NSInputStream *iStream; NSOutputStream *oStream; int handshakeCode; NSString *selectedDiscId; NSString *selectedGenre; } -(void)getMatchesFromFreeDB; -(void)sendToOutputStream:(NSString*)command; @end @implementation stackoverflow -(void)getMatchesFromFreeDB { NSHost *host = [NSHost hostWithName:@"freedb.freedb.org"]; [NSStream getStreamsToHost:host port:8880 inputStream:&iStream outputStream:&oStream]; [iStream retain]; [oStream retain]; [iStream setDelegate:self]; [oStream setDelegate:self]; [iStream scheduleInRunLoop:[NSRunLoop currentRunLoop] forMode:NSDefaultRunLoopMode]; [oStream scheduleInRunLoop:[NSRunLoop currentRunLoop] forMode:NSDefaultRunLoopMode]; [iStream open]; [oStream open]; handshakeCode = 0; //not done any processing } -(void)stream:(NSStream *)aStream handleEvent:(NSStreamEvent)eventCode { switch(eventCode) { case NSStreamEventOpenCompleted: { NSLog(@"Stream open completed"); break; } case NSStreamEventHasBytesAvailable: { NSLog(@"Stream has bytes available"); if (aStream == iStream) { NSMutableString *totalOutput = [NSMutableString stringWithString:@""]; //read data uint8_t buffer[1024]; int len; while ([iStream hasBytesAvailable]) { len = [iStream read:buffer maxLength:sizeof(buffer)]; if (len 0) { NSString *output = [[NSString alloc] initWithBytes:buffer length:len encoding:NSUTF8StringEncoding]; //this could have also been put into an NSData object if (nil != output) { //append to the total output [totalOutput appendString:output]; } } } NSLog(@"OUTPUT , %i:\n\n%@", [totalOutput lengthOfBytesUsingEncoding:NSUTF8StringEncoding], totalOutput); NSArray *outputComponents = [totalOutput componentsSeparatedByString:@" "]; //Attempt to get handshake code, since we haven't done it yet: if (handshakeCode == 1) { //we are just getting the sign-on banner: //let's move on: handshakeCode = 2; } else if (handshakeCode == 2) { handshakeCode = [[outputComponents objectAtIndex:0] intValue]; if (handshakeCode == 200) { NSLog(@"---Handshake OK %i", handshakeCode); NSMutableString *query = [NSMutableString stringWithString:@"cddb query f3114b11 17 225 19915 36489 54850 69425 87025 103948 123242 136075 152817 178335 192850 211677 235104 262090 284882 308658 4430\n"]; handshakeCode = 3; [self sendToOutputStream:query]; } } else if (handshakeCode == 3) { //now, we are reading out the matches: if ([[outputComponents objectAtIndex:0] intValue] == 200) //found exact match: { NSLog(@"Found exact match"); selectedGenre = [outputComponents objectAtIndex:1] ; selectedDiscId = [outputComponents objectAtIndex:2]; if (selectedGenre && selectedDiscId) { //send off the request to get the entry: NSString *query = [NSString stringWithFormat:@"cddb read %@ %@\n", selectedGenre, selectedDiscId]; [self sendToOutputStream:query]; handshakeCode = 4; } } } } break; } case NSStreamEventEndEncountered: { NSLog(@"Stream event end encountered"); break; } case NSStreamEventErrorOccurred: { NSLog(@"Stream error occurred"); break; } case NSStreamEventHasSpaceAvailable: { NSLog(@"Stream has space available"); if (aStream == oStream) { if (handshakeCode == 0) { handshakeCode = 1; [self sendToOutputStream:@"cddb hello stackoverflow localhost.localdomain test .01BETA\n"]; } } break; } } } -(void)sendToOutputStream:(NSString*)command { const uint8_t *rawCommand = (const uint8_t *)[command UTF8String]; [oStream write:rawCommand maxLength:strlen(rawCommand)]; NSLog(@"Sent command: %@",command); } @end int main (int argc, const char * argv[]) { NSAutoreleasePool * pool = [[NSAutoreleasePool alloc] init]; stackoverflow *test = [[stackoverflow alloc] init]; [test getMatchesFromFreeDB]; NSRunLoop *runLoop = [NSRunLoop currentRunLoop]; [runLoop run]; [pool drain]; return 0; } Any help is much appreciated! Thanks

    Read the article

  • Broadcast-style Bluetooth using Sockets on the iPhone?

    - by Kyle
    Is there any way to open a broadcast bluetooth socket, take a listen and send replies? I want a proper peer to peer system where I broadcast and listen for broadcasts in an area. That way, variable clients can mingle. Is this possible? My theory is this: If GameKit can sit around wasting 25 seconds of the users time whilst having access to a broadcast socket, can't I? Or, must I be in kernel mode for such access? I'm not really sure where the proper bluetooth headers are as well. Thanks for reading!

    Read the article

  • .NET Sockets Buffer Overflow No Error

    - by Michael Covelli
    I have one thread that is receiving data over a socket like this: while (sock.Connected) { // Receive Data (Block if no data) recvn = sock.Receive(recvb, 0, rlen, SocketFlags.None, out serr); if (recvn <= 0 || sock == null || !sock.Connected) { OnError("Error In Receive, recvn <= 0 || sock == null || !sock.Connected"); return; } else if (serr != SocketError.Success) { OnError("Error In Receive, serr = " + serr); return; } // Copy Data Into Tokenizer tknz.Read(recvb, recvn); // Parse Data while (tknz.MoveToNext()) { try { ParseMessageAndRaiseEvents(tknz.Buffer(), tknz.Length); } catch (System.Exception ex) { string BadMessage = ByteArrayToStringClean(tknz.Buffer(), tknz.Length); string msg = string.Format("Exception in MDWrapper Parsing Message, Ex = {0}, Msg = {1}", ex.Message, BadMessage); OnError(msg); } } } And I kept seeing occasional errors in my parsing function indicating that the message wasn't valid. At first, I thought that my tokenizer class was broken. But after logging all the incoming bytes to the tokenizer, it turns out that the raw bytes in recvb weren't a valid message. I didn't think that corrupted data like this was possible with a tcp data stream. I figured it had to be some type of buffer overflow so I set sock.ReceiveBufferSize = 1024 * 1024 * 8; and the parsing error never, ever occurs in testing (it happens often enough to replicate if I don't change the ReceiveBufferSize). But my question is: why wasn't I seeing an exception or an error state or something if the socket's internal buffer was overflowing before I changed this buffer size?

    Read the article

  • Sending multiline message via sockets without closing the connection

    - by Yasir Arsanukaev
    Hello folks. Currently I have this code of my client-side Haskell application: import Network.Socket import Network.BSD import System.IO hiding (hPutStr, hPutStrLn, hGetLine, hGetContents) import System.IO.UTF8 connectserver :: HostName -- ^ Remote hostname, or localhost -> String -- ^ Port number or name -> IO Handle connectserver hostname port = withSocketsDo $ do -- withSocketsDo is required on Windows -- Look up the hostname and port. Either raises an exception -- or returns a nonempty list. First element in that list -- is supposed to be the best option. addrinfos <- getAddrInfo Nothing (Just hostname) (Just port) let serveraddr = head addrinfos -- Establish a socket for communication sock <- socket (addrFamily serveraddr) Stream defaultProtocol -- Mark the socket for keep-alive handling since it may be idle -- for long periods of time setSocketOption sock KeepAlive 1 -- Connect to server connect sock (addrAddress serveraddr) -- Make a Handle out of it for convenience h <- socketToHandle sock ReadWriteMode -- Were going to set buffering to LineBuffering and then -- explicitly call hFlush after each message, below, so that -- messages get logged immediately hSetBuffering h LineBuffering return h sendid :: Handle -> String -> IO String sendid h id = do hPutStr h id -- Make sure that we send data immediately hFlush h -- Retrieve results hGetLine h The code portions in connectserver are from this chapter of Real World Haskell book where they say: When dealing with TCP data, it's often convenient to convert a socket into a Haskell Handle. We do so here, and explicitly set the buffering – an important point for TCP communication. Next, we set up lazy reading from the socket's Handle. For each incoming line, we pass it to handle. After there is no more data – because the remote end has closed the socket – we output a message about that. Since hGetContents blocks until the server closes the socket on the other side, I used hGetLine instead. It satisfied me before I decided to implement multiline output to client. I wouldn't like the server to close a socket every time it finishes sending multiline text. The only simple idea I have at the moment is to count the number of linefeeds and stop reading lines after two subsequent linefeeds. Do you have any better suggestions? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Threads, Sockets, and Designing Low-Latency, High Concurrency Servers

    - by lazyconfabulator
    I've been thinking a lot lately about low-latency, high concurrency servers. Specifically, http servers. http servers (fast ones, anyway) can serve thousands of users simultaneously, with very little latency. So how do they do it? As near as I can tell, they all use events. Cherokee and Lighttpd use libevent. Nginx uses it's own event library performing much the same function of libevent, that is, picking a platform optimal strategy for polling events (like kqueue on *bsd, epoll on linux, /dev/poll on Solaris, etc). They all also seem to employ a strategy of multiprocess or multithread once the connection is made - using worker threads to handle the more cpu intensive tasks while another thread continues to listen and handle connections (via events). This is the extent of my understanding and ability to grok the thousand line sources of these applications. What I really want are finer details about how this all works. In examples of using events I've seen (and written) the events are handling both input and output. To this end, do the workers employ some sort of input/output queue to the event handling thread? Or are these worker threads handling their own input and output? I imagine a fixed amount of worker threads are spawned, and connections are lined up and served on demand, but how does the event thread feed these connections to the workers? I've read about FIFO queues and circular buffers, but I've yet to see any implementations to work from. Are there any? Do any use compare-and-swap instructions to avoid locking or is locking less detrimental to event polling than I think? Or have I misread the design entirely? Ultimately, I'd like to take enough away to improve some of my own event-driven network services. Bonus points to anyone providing solid implementation details (especially for stuff like low-latency queues) in C, as that's the language my network services are written in.

    Read the article

  • How to know if the client has terminated in sockets

    - by shadyabhi
    Suppose, I have a connected socket after writing this code.. if ((sd = accept(socket_d, (struct sockaddr *)&client_addr, &alen)) < 0) { perror("accept failed\n"); exit(1); } How can I know at the server side that client has exited. My whole program actually does the following.. Accepts a connection from client Starts a new thread that reads messages from that particular client and then broadcast this message to all the connected clients. If you want to see the whole code... In this whole code. I am also struggling with one more problem that whenever I kill a client with Ctrl+C, my server terminates abruptly.. It would be nice if anyone could suggest what the problem is.. #include <sys/types.h> #include <sys/socket.h> #include <netinet/in.h> #include <arpa/inet.h> #include <netdb.h> #include <stdio.h> #include <unistd.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <string.h> #include <signal.h> #include <errno.h> #include <pthread.h> /*CONSTANTS*/ #define DEFAULT_PORT 10000 #define LISTEN_QUEUE_LIMIT 6 #define TOTAL_CLIENTS 10 #define CHAR_BUFFER 256 /*GLOBAL VARIABLE*/ int current_client = 0; int connected_clients[TOTAL_CLIENTS]; extern int errno; void *client_handler(void * socket_d); int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { struct sockaddr_in server_addr;/* structure to hold server's address*/ int socket_d; /* listening socket descriptor */ int port; /* protocol port number */ int option_value; /* needed for setsockopt */ pthread_t tid[TOTAL_CLIENTS]; port = (argc > 1)?atoi(argv[1]):DEFAULT_PORT; /* Socket Server address structure */ memset((char *)&server_addr, 0, sizeof(server_addr)); server_addr.sin_family = AF_INET; /* set family to Internet */ server_addr.sin_addr.s_addr = INADDR_ANY; /* set the local IP address */ server_addr.sin_port = htons((u_short)port); /* Set port */ /* Create socket */ if ( (socket_d = socket(PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, 0)) < 0) { fprintf(stderr, "socket creation failed\n"); exit(1); } /* Make listening socket's port reusable */ if (setsockopt(socket_d, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, (char *)&option_value, sizeof(option_value)) < 0) { fprintf(stderr, "setsockopt failure\n"); exit(1); } /* Bind a local address to the socket */ if (bind(socket_d, (struct sockaddr *)&server_addr, sizeof(server_addr)) < 0) { fprintf(stderr, "bind failed\n"); exit(1); } /* Specify size of request queue */ if (listen(socket_d, LISTEN_QUEUE_LIMIT) < 0) { fprintf(stderr, "listen failed\n"); exit(1); } memset(connected_clients,0,sizeof(int)*TOTAL_CLIENTS); for (;;) { struct sockaddr_in client_addr; /* structure to hold client's address*/ int alen = sizeof(client_addr); /* length of address */ int sd; /* connected socket descriptor */ if ((sd = accept(socket_d, (struct sockaddr *)&client_addr, &alen)) < 0) { perror("accept failed\n"); exit(1); } else printf("\n I got a connection from (%s , %d)\n",inet_ntoa(client_addr.sin_addr),ntohs(client_addr.sin_port)); if (pthread_create(&tid[current_client],NULL,(void *)client_handler,(void *)sd) != 0) { perror("pthread_create error"); continue; } connected_clients[current_client]=sd; current_client++; /*Incrementing Client number*/ } return 0; } void *client_handler(void *connected_socket) { int sd; sd = (int)connected_socket; for ( ; ; ) { ssize_t n; char buffer[CHAR_BUFFER]; for ( ; ; ) { if (n = read(sd, buffer, sizeof(char)*CHAR_BUFFER) == -1) { perror("Error reading from client"); pthread_exit(1); } int i=0; for (i=0;i<current_client;i++) { if (write(connected_clients[i],buffer,sizeof(char)*CHAR_BUFFER) == -1) perror("Error sending messages to a client while multicasting"); } } } } My client side is this (Maye be irrelevant while answering my question) #include <stdio.h> #include <sys/types.h> #include <sys/socket.h> #include <netinet/in.h> #include <netdb.h> #include <string.h> #include <stdlib.h> void error(char *msg) { perror(msg); exit(0); } void *listen_for_message(void * fd) { int sockfd = (int)fd; int n; char buffer[256]; bzero(buffer,256); printf("YOUR MESSAGE: "); fflush(stdout); while (1) { n = read(sockfd,buffer,256); if (n < 0) error("ERROR reading from socket"); if (n == 0) pthread_exit(1); printf("\nMESSAGE BROADCAST: %sYOUR MESSAGE: ",buffer); fflush(stdout); } } int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { int sockfd, portno, n; struct sockaddr_in serv_addr; struct hostent *server; pthread_t read_message; char buffer[256]; if (argc < 3) { fprintf(stderr,"usage %s hostname port\n", argv[0]); exit(0); } portno = atoi(argv[2]); sockfd = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, 0); if (sockfd < 0) error("ERROR opening socket"); server = gethostbyname(argv[1]); if (server == NULL) { fprintf(stderr,"ERROR, no such host\n"); exit(0); } bzero((char *) &serv_addr, sizeof(serv_addr)); serv_addr.sin_family = AF_INET; bcopy((char *)server->h_addr, (char *)&serv_addr.sin_addr.s_addr, server->h_length); serv_addr.sin_port = htons(portno); if (connect(sockfd,&serv_addr,sizeof(serv_addr)) < 0) error("ERROR connecting"); bzero(buffer,256); if (pthread_create(&read_message,NULL,(void *)listen_for_message,(void *)sockfd) !=0 ) { perror("error creating thread"); } while (1) { fgets(buffer,255,stdin); n = write(sockfd,buffer,256); if (n < 0) error("ERROR writing to socket"); bzero(buffer,256); } return 0; }

    Read the article

  • Android: Streaming audio over TCP Sockets

    - by user299988
    Hi, For my app, I need to record audio from MIC on an Android phone, and send it over TCP to the other android phone, where it needs to be played. I am using AudioRecord and AudioTrack class. This works great with a file - write audio to the file using DataOutputStream, and read from it using DataInputStream. However, if I obtain the same stream from a socket instead of a File, and try writing to it, I get an exception. I am at a loss to understand what could possibly be going wrong. Any help would be greatly appreciated. EDIT: The problem is same even if I try with larger buffer sizes (65535 bytes, 160000 bytes). This is the code: Recorder: int bufferSize = AudioRecord.getMinBufferSize(11025, , AudioFormat.CHANNEL_CONFIGURATION_MONO, AudioFormat.ENCODING_PCM_16BIT); AudioRecord recordInstance = new AudioRecord(MediaRecorder.AudioSource.MIC, 11025, AudioFormat.CHANNEL_CONFIGURATION_MONO, AudioFormat.ENCODING_PCM_16BIT, bufferSize); byte[] tempBuffer = new byte[bufferSize]; recordInstance.startRecording(); while (/*isRecording*/) { bufferRead = recordInstance.read(tempBuffer, 0, bufferSize); dataOutputStreamInstance.write(tempBuffer); } The DataOutputStream above is obtained as: BufferedOutputStream buff = new BufferedOutputStream(out1); //out1 is the socket's outputStream DataOutputStream dataOutputStreamInstance = new DataOutputStream (buff); Could you please have a look, and let me know what is it that I could be doing wrong here? Thanks,

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >