I'm aware I just made a post about SDL_net; however, I have run into a new problem. Packets are sending and getting received. However, when the server receives the data, the client simply disconnects. The SDLNet_TCP_Recv(...); function returns -1. I cannot find the error, for SDLNet_GetError(); isn't working for me(it returns nothing). Has anybody run into this problem before?
My code is below.
//Receiving Code
result = SDLNet_CheckSockets(player_sockSet, 0);
//loop through each client
for(int client = 0; client < maxPlayers; client++) {
//check the socket for activity
int clientSocketActivity = SDLNet_SocketReady(players[client].sock);
if(players[client].connected == true && clientSocketActivity > 0) {
//attempt to read from the socket.
//non-positive return values indicate error
int bytesRecv = SDLNet_TCP_Recv(players[client].sock, msg, 256);
if(bytesRecv > 0) {
//display the result
stringstream ss;
ss << "Received " << bytesRecv << " bytes from client " << client << "!";
consoleOut(ss.str());
}
else {
//there was an error
stringstream ss;
ss << "Player " << client << " has disconnected.";
consoleOut(ss.str());
players[client].connected = false;
connectedPlayers--;
//disconnect the socket
}
}
}
Please excuse the bad indenting, it's because of copy + paste.
It looks like the server falls off the end and exits its process when it receives something.
If it does that, the socket gets automatically closed by the kernel, and the client will be disconnected.
It looks like the server falls off the end and exits its process when it receives something.
If it does that, the socket gets automatically closed by the kernel, and the client will be disconnected.
Hmm. That makes sense - any ideas on how I can fix it?
I would suggest to install a network sniffer like wireshark to see what your connections do.
So you can see who is disconnecting, the client or the server.
I would suggest to install a network sniffer like wireshark to see what your connections do.
So you can see who is disconnecting, the client or the server.
I already know the client is disconnecting, the server can easily handle more connections.
Aha
And what is the servers code posted then. I think that the client code is needed for review. It is absolutely ok that the server gives you a -1 if the client send an RST or FIN. The question is what is wrong in the client code that it closes the connection after sending.
If the client dies before the packet has been processed by the server the client sends a RST. That clears anything that already has been received by the OS socket code. This is why termination should first shutdown, FIN, the connection. This allows the receiver to process any data already received. And if that is done the socket gets closed, RST.
So I would think the client dies and the OS skips the shutdown, FIN, so you are getting a close, RST.
Aha
And what is the servers code posted then. I think that the client code is needed for review. It is absolutely ok that the server gives you a -1 if the client send an RST or FIN. The question is what is wrong in the client code that it closes the connection after sending.
If the client dies before the packet has been processed by the server the client sends a RST. That clears anything that already has been received by the OS socket code. This is why termination should first shutdown, FIN, the connection. This allows the receiver to process any data already received. And if that is done the socket gets closed, RST.
So I would think the client dies and the OS skips the shutdown, FIN, so you are getting a close, RST.
I am using Telnet as a test client. Therefore, the code problem is with the server.
So I take from your words, that you have not analysed the traffic.
This is only an indication. Only if you analyse the packets transmitted you have knowledge. It is a guess that telnet does not terminate the session at will.
So I take from your words, that you have not analysed the traffic.
This is only an indication. Only if you analyse the packets transmitted you have knowledge. It is a guess that telnet does not terminate the session at will.
It is not a guess; it happened with my game client as well.
As I said before. You do not analysed the traffic.
This only makes it a better guess.
Between you clients and the server you have the TCP/IP stacks of two machines and the wireing between them. Or if they run on one machine you even have the TCP/IP stack between the two application and the operating system anyways.
If you have a hardware with multiple cores running you have parallel execution of the two applications. That a lot of stuff. And as long as you do not check the traffic between your clients and the server you are only guessing.
You are seeing misbehaviour and you do not have a clue whats wrong. So you worry about whats wrong but you must prove your result. This is how failure analysis is done. And while developing software you will do this all the time. If you are not proving your idea about the failure you cannot exclude things.
What you are doing right now is excluding without knowledge. This is fatal and not best practice.
