This is my server program, how can it send the data received from each client to every other client?
import socket
import os
from threading import Thread
import thread
def listener(client, address):
print "Accepted connection from: ", address
while True:
data = client.recv(1024)
if not data:
break
else:
print repr(data)
client.send(data)
client.close()
host = socket.gethostname()
port = 10016
s = socket.socket()
s.setsockopt(socket.SOL_SOCKET, socket.SO_REUSEADDR, 1)
s.bind((host,port))
s.listen(3)
th = []
while True:
print "Server is listening for connections..."
client, address = s.accept()
th.append(Thread(target=listener, args = (client,address)).start())
s.close()
If you need to send a message to all clients, you need to keep a collection of all clients in some way. For example:
clients = set()
clients_lock = threading.Lock()
def listener(client, address):
print "Accepted connection from: ", address
with clients_lock:
clients.add(client)
try:
while True:
data = client.recv(1024)
if not data:
break
else:
print repr(data)
with clients_lock:
for c in clients:
c.sendall(data)
finally:
with clients_lock:
clients.remove(client)
client.close()
It would probably be clearer to factor parts of this out into separate functions, like a broadcast function that did all the sends.
Anyway, this is the simplest way to do it, but it has problems:
If one client has a slow connection, everyone else could bog down writing to it. And while they're blocking on their turn to write, they're not reading anything, so you could overflow the buffers and start disconnecting everyone.
If one client has an error, the client whose thread is writing to that client could get the exception, meaning you'll end up disconnecting the wrong user.
So, a better solution is to give each client a queue, and a writer thread servicing that queue, alongside the reader thread. (You can then extend this in all kinds of ways—put limits on the queue so that people stop trying to talk to someone who's too far behind, etc.)
As Anzel points out, there's a different way to design servers besides using a thread (or two) per client: using a reactor that multiplexes all of the clients' events.
Python 3.x has some great libraries for this built in, but 2.7 only has the clunky and out-of-date asyncore/asynchat and the low-level select.
As Anzel says, Python SocketServer: sending to multiple clients has an answer using asyncore, which is worth reading. But I wouldn't actually use that. If you want to write a reactor-based server in Python 2.x, I'd either use a better third-party framework like Twisted, or find or write a very simple one that sits directly on select.
Related
I am experimenting with python sockets to try to understand the whole concept better, but I have run into a problem. I have a simple server and a client, where the client sends a list to the server, and then waits for the server to send a string signaling the process is complete.
This is the client file:
import socket
import json
host = '192.168.1.102'
port = 14314
def request():
print 'Connecting'
clientsocket = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM)
clientsocket.connect((host, port))
print 'Sending request'
clientsocket.sendall(json.dumps([1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]))
print 'Receiving data'
data = clientsocket.recv(512)
print 'Received: {}'.format(data)
request()
and here is the server file:
import socket
import json
host = '192.168.1.102'
port = 14314
def run():
print 'Binding socket'
serversocket = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM)
serversocket.setsockopt(socket.SOL_SOCKET, socket.SO_REUSEADDR, 1)
serversocket.bind((host, port))
print 'Waiting for client'
serversocket.listen(1)
clientsocket, addr = serversocket.accept()
print 'Receiving data'
raw_data = ''
while True:
tmp = clientsocket.recv(1024)
if not tmp:
break
raw_data += tmp
data = json.loads(raw_data)
print 'Received: {}'.format(data)
print 'Sending data'
clientsocket.sendall('done')
run()
The problem is that while the client is done sending the list, the server is stuck in the recv loop, waiting for nothing. The whole data has been received in the first iteration and in the second iteration there is nothing to be received because the client has moved on to the receiving part.
The weird part is that if I comment out the receive part from the client and the send part from the server, the process completes successfully. So, what am I doing wrong? Why is this not working?
Thanks.
The Docs for socket.recv talk about additional flags being able to be passed in to the recv function described in the unix documentation. So turning to that documentation, I found the following message:
If no messages are available at the socket, the receive calls wait for
a message to arrive, unless the socket is nonblocking (see fcntl(2)),
in which case the value -1 is returned
So once again, we're directed to another page. The documentation for fcntl says
Performs one of the operations described below on the open file
descriptor
So, normally the socket.recv function is blocking (it will wait indefinitely for new data), unless we use a file descriptor. How do we do that? Well there is a socket.makefile function that gives us a file descriptor attached to the socket. Cool. This SO question gives us an example of how we can read and write to a socket, using a file descriptor.
Well what if we don't want to use a file descriptor. Reading further into the unix documentation for the recv function, I see that I can use the MSG_DONTWAIT flag. This doesn't work in Windows, but I did find out that we can use socket.setbocking(False) to permamently change the socket to non-blocking mode. You would then need to ignore any "A non-blocking socket operation could not be completed immediately" errors. Those are normal and non-fatal(error #10035 of this page mentions it is non-fatal).
Another possible implementation would be to multi-thread your program, you can implement a receiving and a sending thread for your socket. This might give you the best performance, but it would be a lot of work to setup.
Python is awesome. I just found some libraries Python has that does asynchronous sockets too. There's asyncore, asynchat which have both been deprecated in favor of asyncio if that is available in the version of Python you are using.
Sorry for throwing so much out there. I don't know a whole lot about sockets. I used them once with the Paramiko library, and that was it. But it looks like there are a lot of ways of implementing them.
i recently started making a pure skype resolver and after doing everything fine i stuck on the socket communication.
Let me explain
I'm using python to get the user's IP and then the script opens a socket server and it sends the username to an other program written in .NET
Why is that? Well, the python skype API is not that powerfull so i'm using the axSkype library in order to gather more info.
The problem
The python socket sends the username as it should but i dont know the most efficient way to get the info back. I was thinking opening a socket server in the same script and wait for what the .NET program sends back.
I dont really kwon how to make this as fast as possible so i'm asking for your help.
The code
class api:
def GET(self, username):
skypeapi.activateSkype(username)
time.sleep(1) # because skype is ew
buf = []
print("==========================")
print("Resolving user " + username)
#This is where i'm starting the socket and sending data
s = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM)
s.connect(("127.0.0.1", 5756))
s.sendall(username)
s.close()
#at this poaint i want to get data back from the .NET app
for logfile in glob.glob('*.log'):
buf += logparse.search(logfile, username)
print("Done!")
print("==========================")
return json.dumps(buf)
class index:
def GET(self):
return render.index()
if __name__ == "__main__":
app.run()
You can bind your socket to the connection. This way, your socket stream will remain open and you will be able to send and receive information easily. Integrate this with the _thread module and you will be able to handle multiple streams. Here is some example code that binds a socket to a stream and just sends back whatever the clients sends it(Although in your case you could send whatever data is necessary)
import socket
from _thread import *
#clientHandle function will just receive and send stuff back to a specific client.
def clientHandle(stream):
stream.send(str.encode("Enter some stuff: "))
while True:
#Here is where the program waits for a response. The 4000 is a buffer limit.
data = stream.recv(4000)
if not data:
#If there is not data, exit the loop.
break
stream.senddall(str.encode(data + "\n"))
#Creating socket.
s = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM)
host = "" #In this case the host is the localhost but you can put your host
port = 80
try:
#Here the program tries to bind the socket to the stream.
s.bind((host, port))
except socket.error as e:
print("There was an error: " + str(e))
#Main program loop. Uses multithreading to handle multiple clients.
while True:
conn, addr = s.accept()
print("Connected to: " + addr[0] + ": " + str(addr[1]))
start_new_thread(clientHandle,(conn,))
Now in your case, you can integrate this into your api class(Is that where you want to integrate it? Correct me if I'm wrong.). So now when you define and bind your socket, use this code:
s = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM)
s.bind((host, port))
Where, in your case, host is 127.0.0.1, in other words, your localhost, which can also be accessed by socket.gethostbyname(socket.gethostname())(but that's a bit verbose), and then port, which for you is 5756. Once you have bounded your socket, you have to accept connections through the following syntax:
conn, addr = s.accept()
Which then you can pass conn and addr to whatever function or just use in any other code.
Regardless of what you use it in, to receive data you can use socket.recv() and pass it a buffer limit. (Remember to decode whatever you receive.) And of course, you send data by using socket.sendall().
If you combine this with the _thread module, as shown above, you can handle multiple api requests, which could come handy in the future.
Hope this helps.
this is my first post here!
My goal is to duplicate the payload of a unidirectional TCP stream and send this payload to multiple endpoints concurrently. I have a working prototype written in Python, however I am new to Python, and to Socket programming. Ideally the solution is capable of running in both Windows and *nix environments.
This prototype works, however it creates a new send TCP connection for each Buffer length (currently set to 4096 bytes). The main problem with this is I will eventually run out of local ports to send from, and ideally I would like the data to pass from each single incoming TCP stream to one single TCP stream out (for each endpoint). The incoming data can vary from less than 1024 bytes to hundreds of megabytes.
At the moment a new outgoing TCP stream is initiated for every 4096 bytes. I am not sure if the problem is in my implementation of threading, or if I have missed something else really obvious.
In my research I have found that select() could help, however I am not sure if it would be appropriate because I may need to process some of the incoming data and respond to the sending client for certain cases in the future.
Here is the code I have so far (some of the code variations I have tried are commented out):
#!/usr/bin/python
#One way TCP payload duplication
import sys
import threading
from socket import *
bufsize = 4096
host= ''
# Methods:
#handles sending the data to the endpoints
def send(endpoint,port,data):
sendSocket = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM)
#sendSocket.setblocking(1)
sendSocket.setsockopt(SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, 1)
#sendport = sendSocket.getsockname
#print sendport
try:
sendSocket.connect((endpoint, port))
sendSocket.sendall(data)
except IOError as msg:
print "Send Failed. Error Code: " + str(msg[0]) + ' Message: ' + msg[1]
sys.exit()
#handles threading for sending data to endpoints
def forward(service, ENDPOINT_LIST, port, data):
#for each endpoint in the endpoint list start a new send thread
for endpoint in ENDPOINT_LIST:
print "Forwarding data for %s from %s:%s to %s:%s" % (service,host,port,endpoint,port)
#send(endpoint,port,data)
ethread = threading.Thread(target=send, args=(endpoint,port,data))
ethread.start()
#handles threading for incoming clients
def clientthread(conn,service,ENDPOINT_LIST,port):
while True:
#receive data form client
data = conn.recv(bufsize)
if not data:
break
cthread = threading.Thread(target=forward, args=(service, ENDPOINT_LIST, port, data))
cthread.start()
#no data? then close the connection
conn.close()
#handles listening to sockets for incoming connections
def listen(service, ENDPOINT_LIST, port):
#create the socket
listenSocket = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM)
#Allow reusing addresses - I think this is important to stop local ports getting eaten up by never-ending tcp streams that don't close
listenSocket.setsockopt(SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, 1)
#try to bind the socket to host and port
try:
listenSocket.bind((host, port))
#display an error message if you can't
except IOError as msg:
print "Bind Failed. Error Code: " + str(msg[0]) + ' Message: ' + msg[1]
sys.exit()
#start listening on the socket
listenSocket.listen(10)
print "Service %s on port %s is listening" %(service,port)
while True:
#wait to accept a connection
conn, addr = listenSocket.accept()
print 'Connected to ' + addr[0] + ':' + str(addr[1]) + ' on port ' + str(port)
#start new thread for each connection
lthread = threading.Thread(target=clientthread , args=(conn,service,ENDPOINT_LIST,port))
lthread.start()
#If no data close the connection
listenSocket.close()
service = "Dumb-one-way-tcp-service-name1"
ENDPOINT_LIST = ["192.168.1.100","192.168.1.200"]
port = 55551
listen(service,ENDPOINT_LIST,port)
I have looked into other libraries to try to achieve my goal, including using:
Twisted
Asyncore
Scapy
However I found them quite complicated for my modest needs and programming skill level.
If anyone has any suggestions on how I could refine the approach I have, or any other ways this goal could be achieved, please let me know!
In short, your question is there are not enough ports, right? It seems you didn't close socket after sending. Try this in send():
...
except IOError as msg:
print "Send Failed. Error Code: " + str(msg[0]) + ' Message: ' + msg[1]
sys.exit()
finally:
sendSocket.close()
There are two ways, if you don't want to learn some more advanced framework like Twisted.
The closest to what you're doing: use threads, but you need to have one thread per outgoing connection --- and not per outgoing packet. Create 3 Queue.Queue objects, and create 3 threads, passing to each one one of the Queue objects and one of the destinations. Each thread opens a socket, and then in a loop, it gets the next string from its own Queue and sends it to the socket. The clientthread (which can be just the main thread, a priori) receives data as strings, and puts each of these strings into all the Queues. This way, the packets sent don't get out of order, as they could if you create one thread per packet.
The alternative is to avoid threads completely, and use select(). It's a bit more mind-bending. Basically you have only one big loop that starts with select(). It needs careful management to pass the correct list of sockets to select(): you want the call to select() to wake up either when there is incoming data from the inbound socket, or if an outbound socket is both ready to send more and there is something more to send. In this model you'd have 3 lists of strings; when you read incoming data you append it to all three lists; the select() call is passed the list of outbound sockets that have a non-empty list (so, more to send); and when sending, you must not use sendall() in this model but send(), and if less than the full string was sent, you must re-add the remainder to the beginning of the corresponding list.
I am writing a client-sever program based on Python socket.
The client sends a command to the server and the server responds.
But now, some client can broadcast a message to other clients, so the client can receive more than one response at the same time.
data = s.recv(1024)
the line of code above will retrieve only one response from the server.
but if I use a while loop like this
while True:
data = s.recv(1024)
if not data: break
actually, data=s.recv(1024) will block the program when there is no data left.
I don't want to block the program and want to retrieve all the responses available in the connection at one time. Can anyone find a solution? Thank you.
You can use the select module to wait until the socket is readable or until a timeout has elapsed; you can then perform other processing. For example:
while True:
# If data can be received without blocking (timeout=0), read it now
ready = select.select([s], [], [], 0)
if s in ready[0]:
data = s.recv(1024)
# Process data
else:
# No data is available, perform other tasks
You could make the socket (s) non-blocking. This way, it will retrieve all the received responses and when there is none, it will return back. Of course, with non-blocking, you will have to periodically retry.
You could make the socket (s) non-blocking using the setblocking() method:
s.setblocking(0)
The other option is to use another thread to handle the receive part. This way, your main thread can continue doing its main task and act upon the message only if it receives one.
You can use socket.setblocking or socket.settimeout:
import socket
import sys
HOST = 'www.google.com'
PORT = 80
s = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM)
s.connect((HOST, PORT))
s.setblocking(0)
s.sendall('Hello, world')
try:
data = s.recv(1024)
except:
print 'Oh noes! %s' % sys.exc_info()[0]
s.close()
socket.recv takes two parameters, the second is a set of flags. If you're on a Linux system, you can do man recv for a list of flags you can supply, and their corresponding errors.
Lastly, in general, you can't really know that the other side is done with sending you data (unless you're controlling both sides), even if you're both following a protocol. I believe the right way to go about it is to use timeouts, and quit after sending a reset (how you do this will depend upon what protocol you're using).
I have a main thread that waits for connection. It spawns client threads that will echo the response from the client (telnet in this case). But say that I want to close down all sockets and all threads after some time, like after 1 connection.
How would I do it? If I do clientSocket.close() from the main thread, it won't stop doing the recv. It will only stop if I first send something through telnet, then it will fail doing further sends and recvs.
My code looks like this:
# Echo server program
import socket
from threading import Thread
import time
class ClientThread(Thread):
def __init__(self, clientSocket):
Thread.__init__(self)
self.clientSocket = clientSocket
def run(self):
while 1:
try:
# It will hang here, even if I do close on the socket
data = self.clientSocket.recv(1024)
print "Got data: ", data
self.clientSocket.send(data)
except:
break
self.clientSocket.close()
HOST = ''
PORT = 6000
serverSocket = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM)
serverSocket.setsockopt(socket.SOL_SOCKET, socket.SO_REUSEADDR, 1)
serverSocket.bind((HOST, PORT))
serverSocket.listen(1)
clientSocket, addr = serverSocket.accept()
print 'Got a new connection from: ', addr
clientThread = ClientThread(clientSocket)
clientThread.start()
time.sleep(1)
# This won't make the recv in the clientThread to stop immediately,
# nor will it generate an exception
clientSocket.close()
I know this is an old thread and that Samuel probably fixed his issue a long time ago. However, I had the same problem and came across this post while google'ing. Found a solution and think it is worthwhile to add.
You can use the shutdown method on the socket class. It can prevent further sends, receives or both.
socket.shutdown(socket.SHUT_WR)
The above prevents future sends, as an example.
See Python docs for more info.
I don't know if it's possible to do what you're asking, but it shouldn't be necessary. Just don't read from the socket if there is nothing to read; use select.select to check the socket for data.
change:
data = self.clientSocket.recv(1024)
print "Got data: ", data
self.clientSocket.send(data)
to something more like this:
r, _, _ = select.select([self.clientSocket], [], [])
if r:
data = self.clientSocket.recv(1024)
print "Got data: ", data
self.clientSocket.send(data)
EDIT: If you want to guard against the possibility that the socket has been closed, catch socket.error.
do_read = False
try:
r, _, _ = select.select([self.clientSocket], [], [])
do_read = bool(r)
except socket.error:
pass
if do_read:
data = self.clientSocket.recv(1024)
print "Got data: ", data
self.clientSocket.send(data)
I found a solution using timeouts. That will interrupt the recv (actually before the timeout has expired which is nice):
# Echo server program
import socket
from threading import Thread
import time
class ClientThread(Thread):
def __init__(self, clientSocke):
Thread.__init__(self)
self.clientSocket = clientSocket
def run(self):
while 1:
try:
data = self.clientSocket.recv(1024)
print "Got data: ", data
self.clientSocket.send(data)
except socket.timeout:
# If it was a timeout, we want to continue with recv
continue
except:
break
self.clientSocket.close()
HOST = ''
PORT = 6000
serverSocket = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM)
serverSocket.setsockopt(socket.SOL_SOCKET, socket.SO_REUSEADDR, 1)
serverSocket.bind((HOST, PORT))
serverSocket.listen(1)
clientSocket, addr = serverSocket.accept()
clientSocket.settimeout(1)
print 'Got a new connection from: ', addr
clientThread = ClientThread(clientSocket)
clientThread.start()
# Close it down immediatly
clientSocket.close()
I must apologize for the comments below. The earlier comment by #Matt Anderson works. I had made a mistake when trying it out which led to my post below.
Using timeout is not a very good solution. It may seem that waking up for an instant and then going back to sleep is no big deal, but I have seen it greatly affect the performance of an application. You have an operation that for the most part wants to block until data is available and thus sleep forever. However, if you want to abort for some reason, like shutting down your application, then the trick is how to get out. For sockets, you can use select and listen on two sockets. Your primary one, and a special shutdown one. Creating the shutdown one though is a bit of a pain. You have to create it. You have to get the listening socket to accept it. You have to keep track of both ends of this pipe. I have the same issue with the Synchronized Queue class. There however, you can at least insert a dummy object into the queue to wake up the get(). This requires that the dummy object not look like your normal data though. I sometimes wish Python had something like the Windows API WaitForMultipleObjects.