The problem is, my script won't work (it's printing empty lane), but it works in python interactive console.
import telnetlib
tn = telnetlib.Telnet("killermud.pl", 4000)
data = tn.read_very_eager()
data = data.decode()
print(data)
tn.close()
What is the reason of such behavior?
I just took a look at the documentation for the read_very_eager method, which says:
Read all data available already queued or on the socket,
without blocking.
It is likely that at the time you call this method that there is no data "already available or queued on the socket", so you're getting nothing back. You probably want to use something like the read_until method, which will read data until it finds a specific string. For example:
data = tn.read_until('Podaj swoje imie')
According to tlnetlib documentation, Telnet.read_very_eager() Raises EOFError if connection closed and no cooked data available. Return '' if no cooked data available otherwise. Do not block unless in the midst of an IAC sequence.
If you do data=="", returns true, Therefore, it means that no cooked data is available
Related
def mp_worker(row):
ip = row[0]
ip_address = ip
tcp_port = 2112
buffer_size = 1024
# Read the reset message sent from the sign when a new connection is established
s = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM)
try:
print('Connecting to terminal: {0}'.format(ip_address))
s.connect((ip_address, tcp_port))
#Putting a breakpoint on this call in debug makes the script work
s.send(":08a8RV;")
#data = recv_timeout(s)
data = s.recv(buffer_size)
strip = data.split("$", 1)[-1].rstrip()
strip = strip[:-1]
print(strip)
termStat = [ip_address, strip]
terminals.append(termStat)
except Exception as exc:
print("Exception connecting to: " + ip_address)
print(exc)
The above code is the section of the script that is causing the problem. It's a pretty simple function that connects to a socket based on a passed in IP from a DB query and receives a response that indicates the hardware's firmware version.
Now, the issue is that when I run it in debug with a breakpoint on the socket I get the entire expected response from the hardware, but if I don't have a breakpoint in there or I full on Run the script it only responds with part of the expected message. I tried both putting a time.sleep() in after the send to see if it would get the entire response and I tried using the commented out recv_timeout() method in there which uses a non-blocking socket and timeout to try to get an entire response, both with the exact same results.
As another note, this works in a script with everything in one main code block, but I need this part separated into a function so I can use it with the multiprocessing library. I've tried running it on both my local Windows 7 machine and on a Unix server with the same results.
I'll expands and reiterate on what I've put into a comment moment ago. I am still not entirely sure what is behind the different behavior in either scenario (apart from timing guess apparently disproved by an attempt to include sleep.
However, it's somewhat immaterial as stream sockets do not guarantee you get all the requested data at once and in chunks as requested. This is up for an application to deal with. If the server closes the socket after full response was sent, you could replace:
data = s.recv(buffer_size)
with recv() until zero bytes were received, this would be equivalent of getting 0 (EOF) from from the syscall:
data = ''
while True:
received = s.recv(buffer_size)
if len(received) == 0:
break
data += received
If that is not the case, you would have to rely on fixed or known (sent in the beginning) size you want to consider together. Or deal with this on protocol level (look for characters, sequences used to signal message boundaries.
I just recently found out a solution here, and thought I'd post it in case anyone else has issue, I just decided to try and call socket.recv() before calling socket.send() and then calling socket.recv() again afterwards and it seems to have fixed the issue; I couldn't really tell you why it works though.
data = s.recv(buffer_size)
s.send(":08a8RV;")
data = s.recv(buffer_size)
I'm building a simple server-client app using sockets. Right now, I am trying to get my client to print to console only when it received a specific message (actually, when it doesn't receive a specific message), but for some reason, every other time I run it, it goes through the other statement in my code and is really inconsistent - sometimes it will work as it should and then it will randomly break for a couple uses.
Here is the code on my client side:
def post_checker(client_socket):
response = client_socket.recv(1024)
#check if response is "NP" for a new post from another user
if response == "NP":
new_response = client_socket.recv(1024)
print new_response
else: #print original message being sent
print response
where post_checker is called in the main function as simply "post_checker(client_socket)" Basically, sometimes I get "NPray" printed to my console (when the client only expects to receive the username "ray") and other times it will print correctly.
Here is the server code correlated to this
for sublist in user_list:
client_socket.send("NP")
client_socket.send(sublist[1] + " ")
where user_list is a nested list and sublist[1] is the username I wish to print out on the client side.
Whats going on here?
The nature of your problem is that TCP is a streaming protocol. The bufsize in recv(bufsize) is a maximum size. The recv function will always return data when available, even if not all of the bytes have been received.
See the documentation for details.
This causes problems when you've only sent half the bytes, but you've already started processing the data. I suggest you take a look at the "recvall" concept from this site or you can also consider using UDP sockets (which would solve this problem but may create a host of others as UDP is not a guaranteed protocol).
You may also want to let the python packages handle some of the underlying framework for you. Consider using a SocketServer as documented here:
buffer = []
def recv(sock):
global buffer
message = b""
while True:
if not (b"\r\n" in b"".join(buffer)):
chunk = sock.recv(1024)
if not chunk:
break
buffer.append(chunk)
concat = b"".join(buffer)
if (b"\r\n" in concat):
message = concat[:concat.index(b"\r\n")]
concat = concat[concat.index(b"\r\n") + 2:]
buffer = [concat]
break
return message
def send(sock, data):
sock.send(data + b"\r\n")
I have tested this, and in my opinion, it works perfectly
My use case: I have two scripts that send data quickly, it ends up that one time or another, the buffers receive more than they should, and gather the data, with this script it leaves everything that receives more saved, and continues receiving until there is a new line between the data, and then, it gathers the data, divides in the new line, saves the rest and returns the data perfectly separated
(I translated this, so please excuse me if anything is wrong or misunderstood)
I will write a SSH communicator class on Python. I have telnet communicator class and I should use functions like at telnet. Telnet communicator have read_until and read_very_eager functions.
read_until : Read until a given string is encountered or until timeout.
read_very_eager : Read everything that's possible without blocking in I/O (eager).
I couldn't find these functions for SSH communicator. Any idea?
You didn't state it in the question, but I am assuming you are using Paramiko as per the tag.
read_until: Read until a given string is encountered or until timeout.
This seems like a very specialized function for a particular high level task. I think you will need to implement this one. You can set a timeout using paramiko.Channel.settimeout and then read in a loop until you get either the string you want or a timeout exception.
read_very_eager: Read everything that's possible without blocking in I/O (eager).
Paramiko doesn't directly provide this, but it does provide primitives for non-blocking I/O and you can easily put this in a loop to slurp in everything that's available on the channel. Have you tried something like this?
channel.setblocking(True)
resultlist = []
while True:
try:
chunk = channel.recv(1024)
except socket.timeout:
break
resultlist.append(chunk)
return ''.join(resultlist)
Hi there even i was searching solution for the same problem.
I think it might help you ....
one observation, tell me if you find solution.
I wont get output if i remove 6th line.
I was actually printing 6th line to know the status, later i found recv_exit_status() should be called for execution of this code.
import paramiko,sys
trans = paramiko.Transport((host, 22))
trans.connect(username = user, password = passwd)
session = trans.open_channel("session")
session.exec_command('grep -rE print .')
session.recv_exit_status()
while session.recv_ready():
temp = session.recv(1024)
print temp
1.Read until > search for the data you are searching for and break the loop
2.Read_very_eager > use the above mentioned code.
I'm trying to use a unix named pipe to output statistics of a running service. I intend to provide a similar interface as /proc where one can see live stats by catting a file.
I'm using a code similar to this in my python code:
while True:
f = open('/tmp/readstatshere', 'w')
f.write('some interesting stats\n')
f.close()
/tmp/readstatshere is a named pipe created by mknod.
I then cat it to see the stats:
$ cat /tmp/readstatshere
some interesting stats
It works fine most of the time. However, if I cat the entry several times in quick successions, sometimes I get multiple lines of some interesting stats instead of one. Once or twice, it has even gone into an infinite loop printing that line forever until I killed it. The only fix that I've got so far is to put a delay of let's say 500ms after f.close() to prevent this issue.
I'd like to know why exactly this happens and if there is a better way of dealing with it.
Thanks in advance
A pipe is simply the wrong solution here. If you want to present a consistent snapshot of the internal state of your process, write that to a temporary file and then rename it to the "public" name. This will prevent all issues that can arise from other processes reading the state while you're updating it. Also, do NOT do that in a busy loop, but ideally in a thread that sleeps for at least one second between updates.
What about a UNIX socket instead of a pipe?
In this case, you can react on each connect by providing fresh data just in time.
The only downside is that you cannot cat the data; you'll have to create a new socket handle and connect() to the socket file.
MYSOCKETFILE = '/tmp/mysocket'
import socket
import os
try:
os.unlink(MYSOCKETFILE)
except OSError: pass
s = socket.socket(socket.AF_UNIX)
s.bind(MYSOCKETFILE)
s.listen(10)
while True:
s2, peeraddr = s.accept()
s2.send('These are my actual data')
s2.close()
Program querying this socket:
MYSOCKETFILE = '/tmp/mysocket'
import socket
import os
s = socket.socket(socket.AF_UNIX)
s.connect(MYSOCKETFILE)
while True:
d = s.recv(100)
if not d: break
print d
s.close()
I think you should use fuse.
it has python bindings, see http://pypi.python.org/pypi/fuse-python/
this allows you to compose answers to questions formulated as posix filesystem system calls
Don't write to an actual file. That's not what /proc does. Procfs presents a virtual (non-disk-backed) filesystem which produces the information you want on demand. You can do the same thing, but it'll be easier if it's not tied to the filesystem. Instead, just run a web service inside your Python program, and keep your statistics in memory. When a request comes in for the stats, formulate them into a nice string and return them. Most of the time you won't need to waste cycles updating a file which may not even be read before the next update.
You need to unlink the pipe after you issue the close. I think this is because there is a race condition where the pipe can be opened for reading again before cat finishes and it thus sees more data and reads it out, leading to multiples of "some interesting stats."
Basically you want something like:
while True:
os.mkfifo(the_pipe)
f = open(the_pipe, 'w')
f.write('some interesting stats')
f.close()
os.unlink(the_pipe)
Update 1: call to mkfifo
Update 2: as noted in the comments, there is a race condition in this code as well with multiple consumers.
I have a client that connects to an HTTP stream and logs the text data it consumes.
I send the streaming server an HTTP GET request... The server replies and continuously publishes data... It will either publish text or send a ping (text) message regularly... and will never close the connection.
I need to read and log the data it consumes in a non-blocking manner.
I am doing something like this:
import urllib2
req = urllib2.urlopen(url)
for dat in req:
with open('out.txt', 'a') as f:
f.write(dat)
My questions are:
will this ever block when the stream is continuous?
how much data is read in each chunk and can it be specified/tuned?
is this the best way to read/log an http stream?
Hey, that's three questions in one! ;-)
It could block sometimes - even if your server is generating data quite quickly, network bottlenecks could in theory cause your reads to block.
Reading the URL data using "for dat in req" will mean reading a line at a time - not really useful if you're reading binary data such as an image. You get better control if you use
chunk = req.read(size)
which can of course block.
Whether it's the best way depends on specifics not available in your question. For example, if you need to run with no blocking calls whatever, you'll need to consider a framework like Twisted. If you don't want blocking to hold you up and don't want to use Twisted (which is a whole new paradigm compared to the blocking way of doing things), then you can spin up a thread to do the reading and writing to file, while your main thread goes on its merry way:
def func(req):
#code the read from URL stream and write to file here
...
t = threading.Thread(target=func)
t.start() # will execute func in a separate thread
...
t.join() # will wait for spawned thread to die
Obviously, I've omitted error checking/exception handling etc. but hopefully it's enough to give you the picture.
You're using too high-level an interface to have good control about such issues as blocking and buffering block sizes. If you're not willing to go all the way to an async interface (in which case twisted, already suggested, is hard to beat!), why not httplib, which is after all in the standard library? HTTPResponse instance .read(amount) method is more likely to block for no longer than needed to read amount bytes, than the similar method on the object returned by urlopen (although admittedly there are no documented specs about that on either module, hmmm...).
Another option is to use the socket module directly. Establish a connection, send the HTTP request, set the socket to non-blocking mode, and then read the data with socket.recv() handling 'Resource temporarily unavailable' exceptions (which means that there is nothing to read). A very rough example is this:
import socket, time
BUFSIZE = 1024
s = socket.socket()
s.connect(('localhost', 1234))
s.send('GET /path HTTP/1.0\n\n')
s.setblocking(False)
running = True
while running:
try:
print "Attempting to read from socket..."
while True:
data = s.recv(BUFSIZE)
if len(data) == 0: # remote end closed
print "Remote end closed"
running = False
break
print "Received %d bytes: %r" % (len(data), data)
except socket.error, e:
if e[0] != 11: # Resource temporarily unavailable
print e
raise
# perform other program tasks
print "Sleeping..."
time.sleep(1)
However, urllib.urlopen() has some benefits if the web server redirects, you need URL based basic authentication etc. You could make use of the select module which will tell you when there is data to read.
Yes when you catch up with the server it will block until the server produces more data
Each dat will be one line including the newline on the end
twisted is a good option
I would swap the with and for around in your example, do you really want to open and close the file for every line that arrives?