Welcome to OGeek Q&A Community for programmer and developer-Open, Learning and Share
Welcome To Ask or Share your Answers For Others

Categories

0 votes
496 views
in Technique[技术] by (71.8m points)

c# - What is the minimum number of bytes that will cause Socket.Receive to return?

We are using a application protocol which specifies the length indicator of the message in the first 4 bytes. Socket.Receive will return as much data as in the protocol stack at the time or block until data is available. This is why we have to continously read from the socket until we receive the number of bytes in the length indicator. The Socket.Receive will return 0 if the other side closed the connection. I understand all that.

Is there a minimum number of bytes that has to be read? The reason I ask is from the documentation it seems entirely possible that the entire length indicator (4 bytes) might not be available when socket.Receive can return. We would then have to have to keep trying. It would be more efficient to minimize the number of times we call socket.receive because it has to copy things in and out of buffers. So is it safer to get a single byte at a time to get the length indicator, is it safe to assume that 4 bytes will always be available or should we keep trying to get 4 bytes using an offset variable?

The reason that I think that there may be some sort of default minimum level is that I came across a varaible called ReceiveLowWater variable that I can set in the socket options. But this appears to only apply to BSD. MSDN See SO_RCVLOWAT.

It isn't really that important but I am trying to write unit tests. I have already wrapped a standard .Net Socket behind an interface.

See Question&Answers more detail:os

与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…
Welcome To Ask or Share your Answers For Others

1 Reply

0 votes
by (71.8m points)

is it safe to assume that 4 bytes will always be available

NO. Never. What if someone is testing your protocol with, say, telnet and a keyboard? Or over a real slow or busy connection? You can receive one byte at a time or a split "length indicator" over multiple Receive() calls. This isn't unit testing matter, it's basic socket matter that causes problems in production, especially under stressful situations.

or should we keep trying to get 4 bytes using an offset variable?

Yes, you should. For your convenience, you can use the Socket.Receive() overload that allows you to specify a number of bytes to be read so you won't read too much. But please note it can return less than required, that's what the offset parameter is for, so it can continue to write in the same buffer:

byte[] lenBuf = new byte[4];
int offset = 0;

while (offset < lenBuf.Length)
{       
    int received = socket.Receive(lenBuf, offset, lenBuf.Length - offset, 0);

    offset += received;     

    if (received == 0)
    {
        // connection gracefully closed, do your thing to handle that
    }
}

// Here you're ready to parse lenBuf

The reason that I think that there may be some sort of default minimum level is that I came across a varaible called ReceiveLowWater variable that I can set in the socket options. But this appears to only apply to BSD.

That is correct, the "receive low water" flag is only included for backwards compatibility and does nothing apart from throwing errors, as per MSDN, search for SO_RCVLOWAT:

This option is not supported by the Windows TCP/IP provider. If this option is used on Windows Vista and later, the getsockopt and setsockopt functions fail with WSAEINVAL. On earlier versions of Windows, these functions fail with WSAENOPROTOOPT". So I guess you'll have to use the offset.

It's a shame, because it can enhance performance. However, as @cdleonard pointed out in a comment, the performance penalty from keeping an offset variable will be minimal, as you'l usually receive the four bytes at once.


与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…
OGeek|极客中国-欢迎来到极客的世界,一个免费开放的程序员编程交流平台!开放,进步,分享!让技术改变生活,让极客改变未来! Welcome to OGeek Q&A Community for programmer and developer-Open, Learning and Share
Click Here to Ask a Question

...