During the RAW-socket based packet send testing, I found very irritating symptoms.
With a default RAW socket setting (especially for SO_SNDBUF size),
the raw socket send 100,000 packets without problem but it took about 8 seconds
to send all the packets, and the packets are correctly received by the receiver process.
It means about 10,000 pps (packets per second) is achieved by the default setting.
(I think it's too small figure contrary to my expectation.)
Anyway, to increase the pps value, I increased the packet send buffer size
by adjusting the /proc/sys/net/core/{wmem_max, wmem_default}.
After increasing the two system parameters, I have identified the irritating symptom.
The 100,000 packets are sent promptly, but only the 3,000 packets are
received by the receiver process (located at a remote node).
At the sending Linux box (Centos 5.2), I did netstat -a -s and ifconfig.
Netstat showed that 100,000 requests sent out, but the ifconfig shows that
only 3,000 packets are TXed.
I want to know the reason why this happens, and I also want to know
how can I solve this problem (of course I don't know whether it is really a problem).
Could anybody give me some advice, examples, or references to this problem?
Best regards,
bjlee
You didn't say what size your packets were or any characteristics of your network, NIC, hardware, or anything about the remote machine receiving the data.
I suspect that instead of playing with /proc/sys stuff, you should be using ethtool to adjust the number of ring buffers, but not necessarily the size of those buffers.
Also, this page is a good resource.
I have just been working with essentially the same problem. I accidentally stumbled across an entirely counter-intuitive answer that still doesn't make sense to me, but it seems to work.
I was trying larger and larger SO_SNDBUF buffer sizes, and losing packets like mad. By accidentally overrunning my system defined maximum, it set the SO_SNDBUF size to a very small number instead, but oddly enough, I no longer had the packet loss issue. So I intentionally set SO_SNDBUF to 1, which again resulted in a very small number (not sure, but I think it actually set it to something like 1k), and amazingly enough, still no packet loss.
If anyone can explain this, I would be most interested in hearing it. In case it matters, my version of Linux is RHEL 5.11 (yes, I know, I'm a bit behind the times).
Related
I've read many stack overflow questions similar to this, but I don't think any of the answers really satisfied my curiosity. I have an example below which I would like to get some clarification.
Suppose the client is blocking on socket.recv(1024):
socket.recv(1024)
print("Received")
Also, suppose I have a server sending 600 bytes to the client. Let us assume that these 600 bytes are broken into 4 small packets (of 150 bytes each) and sent over the network. Now suppose the packets reach the client at different timings with a difference of 0.0001 seconds (eg. one packet arrives at 12.00.0001pm and another packet arrives at 12.00.0002pm, and so on..).
How does socket.recv(1024) decide when to return execution to the program and allow the print() function to execute? Does it return execution immediately after receiving the 1st packet of 150 bytes? Or does it wait for some arbitrary amount of time (eg. 1 second, for which by then all packets would have arrived)? If so, how long is this "arbitrary amount of time"? Who determines it?
Well, that will depend on many things, including the OS and the speed of the network interface. For a 100 gigabit interface, the 100us is "forever," but for a 10 mbit interface, you can't even transmit the packets that fast. So I won't pay too much attention to the exact timing you specified.
Back in the day when TCP was being designed, networks were slow and CPUs were weak. Among the flags in the TCP header is the "Push" flag to signal that the payload should be immediately delivered to the application. So if we hop into the Waybak
machine the answer would have been something like it depends on whether or not the PSH flag is set in the packets. However, there is generally no user space API to control whether or not the flag is set. Generally what would happen is that for a single write that gets broken into several packets, the final packet would have the PSH flag set. So the answer for a slow network and weakling CPU might be that if it was a single write, the application would likely receive the 600 bytes. You might then think that using four separate writes would result in four separate reads of 150 bytes, but after the introduction of Nagle's algorithm the data from the second to fourth writes might well be sent in a single packet unless Nagle's algorithm was disabled with the TCP_NODELAY socket option, since Nagle's algorithm will wait for the ACK of the first packet before sending anything less than a full frame.
If we return from our trip in the Waybak machine to the modern age where 100 Gigabit interfaces and 24 core machines are common, our problems are very different and you will have a hard time finding an explicit check for the PSH flag being set in the Linux kernel. What is driving the design of the receive side is that networks are getting way faster while the packet size/MTU has been largely fixed and CPU speed is flatlining but cores are abundant. Reducing per packet overhead (including hardware interrupts) and distributing the packets efficiently across multiple cores is imperative. At the same time it is imperative to get the data from that 100+ Gigabit firehose up to the application ASAP. One hundred microseconds of data on such a nic is a considerable amount of data to be holding onto for no reason.
I think one of the reasons that there are so many questions of the form "What the heck does receive do?" is that it can be difficult to wrap your head around what is a thoroughly asynchronous process, wheres the send side has a more familiar control flow where it is much easier to trace the flow of packets to the NIC and where we are in full control of when a packet will be sent. On the receive side packets just arrive when they want to.
Let's assume that a TCP connection has been set up and is idle, there is no missing or unacknowledged data, the reader is blocked on recv, and the reader is running a fresh version of the Linux kernel. And then a writer writes 150 bytes to the socket and the 150 bytes gets transmitted in a single packet. On arrival at the NIC, the packet will be copied by DMA into a ring buffer, and, if interrupts are enabled, it will raise a hardware interrupt to let the driver know there is fresh data in the ring buffer. The driver, which desires to return from the hardware interrupt in as few cycles as possible, disables hardware interrupts, starts a soft IRQ poll loop if necessary, and returns from the interrupt. Incoming data from the NIC will now be processed in the poll loop until there is no more data to be read from the NIC, at which point it will re-enable the hardware interrupt. The general purpose of this design is to reduce the hardware interrupt rate from a high speed NIC.
Now here is where things get a little weird, especially if you have been looking at nice clean diagrams of the OSI model where higher levels of the stack fit cleanly on top of each other. Oh no, my friend, the real world is far more complicated than that. That NIC that you might have been thinking of as a straightforward layer 2 device, for example, knows how to direct packets from the same TCP flow to the same CPU/ring buffer. It also knows how to coalesce adjacent TCP packets into larger packets (although this capability is not used by Linux and is instead done in software). If you have ever looked at a network capture and seen a jumbo frame and scratched your head because you sure thought the MTU was 1500, this is because this processing is at such a low level it occurs before netfilter can get its hands on the packet. This packet coalescing is part of a capability known as receive offloading, and in particular lets assume that your NIC/driver has generic receive offload (GRO) enabled (which is not the only possible flavor of receive offloading), the purpose of which is to reduce the per packet overhead from your firehose NIC by reducing the number of packets that flow through the system.
So what happens next is that the poll loop keeps pulling packets off of the ring buffer (as long as more data is coming in) and handing it off to GRO to consolidate if it can, and then it gets handed off to the protocol layer. As best I know, the Linux TCP/IP stack is just trying to get the data up to the application as quickly as it can, so I think your question boils down to "Will GRO do any consolidation on my 4 packets, and are there any knobs I can turn that affect this?"
Well, the first thing you can do is disable any form of receive offloading (e.g. via ethtool), which I think should get you 4 reads of 150 bytes for 4 packets arriving like this in order, but I'm prepared to be told I have overlooked another reason why the Linux TCP/IP stack won't send such data straight to the application if the application is blocked on a read as in your example.
The other knob you have if GRO is enabled is GRO_FLUSH_TIMEOUT which is a per NIC timeout in nanoseconds which can be (and I think defaults to) 0. If it is 0, I think your packets may get consolidated (there are many details here including the value of MAX_GRO_SKBS) if they arrive while the soft IRQ poll loop for the NIC is still active, which in turn depends on many things unrelated to your four packets in your TCP flow. If non-zero, they may get consolidated if they arrive within GRO_FLUSH_TIMEOUT nanoseconds, though to be honest I don't know if this interval could span more than one instantiation of a poll loop for the NIC.
There is a nice writeup on the Linux kernel receive side here which can help guide you through the implementation.
A normal blocking receive on a TCP connection returns as soon as there is at least one byte to return to the caller. If the caller would like to receive more bytes, they can simply call the receive function again.
I want to transfer a large number of messages. The messages do not need to be reliable. UDP comes to mind as a protocol choice.
Latency is important as well. I do not want to suffer from TCP head-of-line blocking.
I'm concerned I might overload the network when I just start sending messages at maximum speed (e.g. while (messagesRemaining != 0) Send(...);). If I send more than some middle-box can relay then, I think, large numbers of messages might be dropped. Some messages being dropped is fine but most of them should arrive.
How can I address this issue? How can I find out how fast I can send? I want to maintain reasonable packet loss (a few percent) and otherwise maximize bandwidth.
Whether you will overload the network or not depends on what is between the sender and the receiver hosts. The iperf utility has a UDP option that could help you determine the max rate you could send for a certain level of acceptable packet loss.
That said, from personal experience:
If it's local Gigabit network and client/server on same subnet, I highly doubt you would lose any packets. I've done tests before with iperf in this type of environment and never lost any packets; iperf is going to be one of the fastest and most efficient ways to put UDP packets on to the wire from a PC and we still never lost packets. We were even running the packets through an intel Atom-based Linux host with bridged ports setup while doing tcpdump at the same time and still never lost packets (note that even cheapo switches would perform as good or better than a bridge setup in a PC). The only way we were ever able to get packets to be lost was when we used FPGA/ASIC test devices that could put packets onto the wire at true line-speed for long periods of time. Even at that, the test setup was only losing packets when the packets were less than around 500 bytes.
If you aren't on a local network though (i.e. going over internet or routers) you will just need to do some testing with iperf to see what is acceptable for your environment. Problem is though that what rate can be sustained one day isn't guaranteed to be the same the next day. UDP doesn't have any sort of congestion/flow control algorithms like TCP does so you will have to figure out on your own how fast you can send.
I understand that when sending ip messages around, each hop in the network path between be and my packet's destination will check if the next hop's MTU is bigger than the size of the packet I sent. If so, the packet will be fragmented and the two packets will be separately sent to the next hop, only to be reassembled at destination (or, in some cases, at the first NAT router encountered).
As far as I understand, this thing can be pretty bad, but I don't really understand why.
I understand that if the connection tends to drop a lot of packets, losing a single fragment means I have to resend the whole packet (this is actually the only thing I figured out myself)
Is there a chance that instead of being fragmented my packet will just be dropped?
How are packet fragments identified? Can I be 100% sure that they will be reassembled correctly? On example, if I send two ip packets of the same length nearly simultaneously to the same destination, how likely it is that fragments of the two will be swaped, like AAA, BBB reassembled into ABA, BAB?
In principle, if packets aren't dropped and fragments are reassembled correctly, actually using packet fragmentation seems like a good idea to save on local bandwidth and avoid having to send more and more headers instead of just one big packet.
Thank you
IP fragmentation can cause several problems:
1) Application layer loss is increased
As you mentioned, if a single fragment is dropped, the entire layer 4 packet will be lost. Thus, for a network with a small random packet loss rate, the application layer loss rate is increased by a factor approximately equal to the number of fragments for each layer 4 packet.
2) Not all networks handle fragmented packets
Some systems, such as Google's Compute Engine, do not reassemble fragmented packets.
3) Fragmentation can cause re-ordering
When routers split traffic down parallel paths, they may try to keep packets from the same flow on a single path. Because only the first fragment has layer 4 information like UDP/TCP port number, subsequent fragments may be routed down a different path, delaying assembly of the layer 4 packet and causing re-ordering.
4) Fragmentation can cause confusing behavior that is hard to debug
For example, if you send two UDP streams, A and B, from one source to a destination running Linux, the destination may discard packets from one of the streams. This is because by default, Linux "times out" fragment queues if more than 64 other fragments have been received from the same source. If stream A has a much higher data rate than stream B, 64 fragments from stream A may arrive in between the fragments from stream B, causing the B fragment to be dropped.
Thus, while IP fragmentation can reduce overhead by minimizing user headers, it may cause more trouble than it is worth.
To my knowledge, the only case where packets will be dropped rather than fragmented (barring cases where it would be dropped anyway), is packets which are marked "don't fragment". These packets are to be discarded rather than being fragmented.
Fragmented packets have identifier, fragment offset, and more fragments fields in their headers that, when combined, allow the destination host to reliably reassemble the packet upon receipt of all the fragments. The first fragment's offset is zero, and the last fragment has the more fragments flag set to zero. It is still possible (although very unlikely) to reassemble an incorrect packet if two packets' headers are mutated so their fragment offsets are exchanged, but their checksums are still valid. The probability of this happening is essentially zero. Bear in mind that IP does not provide any mechanism for ensuring the integrity of the data payload, only the integrity of the control information in the header.
Packet fragmentation necessarily wastes bandwidth because each fragment has a copy of [most of] the original datagram's header. Packets can be fragmented down to only 8 bytes per fragment, so we could have a maximum-sized packet at 60 + 65536 bytes fragmented into 60 * 8192 + 65536 bytes, yielding a payload increase of about 750% in the worst case. The only example I can come up with where you would come out ahead is if you fragmented a packet in order to send its fragments in parallel using some kind of Frequency Division Multiplexing scheme with the knowledge that the other channels are free. At that point, it still seems like it would require more work than would be saved to detect that circumstance and divide the packet rather than just sending it.
All the basic details about the mechanics of packet fragmentation in IP can be found in IETF RFC 791, if you're hungry for more information.
I was using setsockopt with SO_SENDBUF/SO_RECVBUF for setting the send/receive buffer of TCP with 256*1024 bytes.
But when I see in wireshark, I can see that the TCP's "Window Size" is shown as only 1525.
Also wmem_max and rmem_max are set with values 131071(126 kb).So ideally I was expecting it to be at least 128 kbps.
can anyone please help with this ?
Is this can also be a problem of wireshark where it is showing wrong "Window size".
You need to set that size on the listening socket at the server, before any accepts(), and at the client you need to set it on the socket before you connect it. That way you are allowing TCP's 'window scaling' option to take effect, which can only happen during the connect handshake. After the connection is established it is too late. That way the TCP receive window can be as large as the receive buffer, assuming various other conditions hold.
However unless you have an extraordinarily high-latency network with extraordinary bandwidth, 256k may be too large a size. There is no point whatsoever in setting it higher than the bandwidth-delay product, which can be calculated as the bandwidth in bytes/second times the delay in seconds, giving a result in bytes.
I have been messing around Boost Asio for some days now but I got stuck with this weird behavior. Please let me explain.
Computer A is sending continuos udp packets every 500 ms to computer B, computer B desires to read A's packets with it own velocity but only wants A's last packet, obviously the most updated one.
It has come to my attention that when I do a:
mSocket.receive_from(boost::asio::buffer(mBuffer), mEndPoint);
I can get OLD packets that were not processed (almost everytime).
Does this make any sense? A friend of mine told me that sockets maintain a buffer of packets and therefore If I read with a lower frequency than the sender this could happen. ยก?
So, the first question is how is it possible to receive the last packet and discard the ones I missed?
Later I tried using the async example of the Boost documentation but found it did not do what I wanted.
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_36_0/doc/html/boost_asio/tutorial/tutdaytime6.html
From what I could tell the async_receive_from should call the method "handle_receive" when a packet arrives, and that works for the first packet after the service was "run".
If I wanted to keep listening the port I should call the async_receive_from again in the handle code. right?
BUT what I found is that I start an infinite loop, it doesn't wait till the next packet, it just enters "handle_receive" again and again.
I'm not doing a server application, a lot of things are going on (its a game), so my second question is, do I have to use threads to use the async receive method properly, is there some example with threads and async receive?
One option is to take advantage of the fact that when the local receive buffer for your UDP socket fills up, subsequently received packets will push older ones out of the buffer. You can set the local receive buffer size to be large enough for one packet, but not two. This will make the newest packet to arrive always cause the previous one to be discarded. When you then ask for the packet using receive_from, you'll get the latest (and only) one.
Here are the API docs for changing the receive buffer size with Boost:
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_37_0/doc/html/boost_asio/reference/basic_datagram_socket/receive_buffer_size.html
The example appears to be wrong, in that it shows a tcp socket rather than a udp socket, but changing that back to udp should be easy (the trivially obvious change should be the right one).
With Windows (certainly XP, Vista, & 7); if you set your recv buffer size to zero you'll only receive datagrams if you have a recv pending when the datagram arrives. This MAY do what you want but you'll have to sit and wait for the next one if you post your recv just after the last datagram arrives ...
Since you're doing a game, it would be far better, IMHO, is to use something built on UDP rather than UDP itself. Take a look at ENet which supports reliable data over UDP and also unreliable 'sequenced' data over UDP. With unreliable sequenced data you only ever get the 'latest' data. Or something like RakNet might be useful to you as it does a lot of games stuff and also includes stuff similar to ENet's sequenced data.
Something else you should bear in mind is that with raw UDP you may get those datagrams out of order and you may get them more than once. So you're likely gonna need your own sequence number in their anyway if you don't use something which sequences the data for you.
P2engine is a flexible and efficient platform for making p2p system development easier. Reliable UDP, Message Transport , Message Dispatcher, Fast and Safe Signal/Slot...
You're going about it the wrong way. The receiving end has a FIFO queue. Once the queue gets filled new arriving packets are discarded.
So what you need to do on the receiver is just to keep reading the packets as fast as possible and process them as they arrive.
Your receiving end should easily be able to handle receiving a packet every 500ms. I'd say you've got a bug in your code and from what you describe yes you do.
It could be this, make sure in handle_receive that you only call async_receive_from if there is no error.
I think that I have your same problem, to solve the problem I read the bytes_available and compare with packet width until I receive the last package:
boost::asio::socket_base::bytes_readable command(true);
socket_server.io_control(command);
std::size_t bytes_readable = command.get();
Here is the documentation.