read() 和 recv() 之间以及 send() 和 write() 之间有什么区别？

Question

What is the difference between read() and recv() , and between send() and write() in socket programming in terms of performances, speed and other behaviors?

Answer 1

The difference is that recv() / send() work only on socket descriptors and let you specify certain options for the actual operation. Those functions are slightly more specialized (for instance, you can set a flag to ignore SIGPIPE , or to send out-of-band messages...).

Functions read() / write() are the universal file descriptor functions working on all descriptors.

Answer 2

Per the first hit on Google

read() is equivalent to recv() with a flags parameter of 0. Other values for the flags parameter change the behaviour of recv(). Similarly, write() is equivalent to send() with flags == 0.

Answer 3

read() and write() are more generic, they work with any file descriptor. However, they won't work on Windows.

You can pass additional options to send() and recv() , so you may have to used them in some cases.

Answer 4

I just noticed recently that when I used write() on a socket in Windows, it almost works (the FD passed to write() isn't the same as the one passed to send() ; I used _open_osfhandle() to get the FD to pass to write() ). However, it didn't work when I tried to send binary data that included character 10. write() somewhere inserted character 13 before this. Changing it to send() with a flags parameter of 0 fixed that problem. read() could have the reverse problem if 13-10 are consecutive in the binary data, but I haven't tested it. But that appears to be another possible difference between send() and write() .

Answer 5

Another thing on linux is:

send does not allow to operate on non-socket fd. Thus, for example to write on usb port, write is necessary.

Answer 6

"Performance and speed"? Aren't those kind of ... synonyms, here?

Anyway, the recv() call takes flags that read() doesn't, which makes it more powerful, or at least more convenient. That is one difference. I don't think there is a significant performance difference, but haven't tested for it.

Answer 7

On Linux I also notice that :

Interruption of system calls and library functions by signal handlers
If a signal handler is invoked while a system call or library function call is blocked, then either:

• the call is automatically restarted after the signal handler returns; or

• the call fails with the error EINTR.

... The details vary across UNIX systems; below, the details for Linux.

If a blocked call to one of the following interfaces is interrupted by a signal handler, then the call is automatically restarted after the signal handler returns if the SA_RESTART flag was used; otherwise the call fails with the error EINTR:

• read (2), readv(2), write(2), writev(2), and ioctl(2) calls on "slow" devices.

.....

The following interfaces are never restarted after being interrupted by a signal handler, regardless of the use of SA_RESTART; they always fail with the error EINTR when interrupted by a signal handler:

• "Input" socket interfaces, when a timeout (SO_RCVTIMEO) has been set on the socket using setsockopt(2): accept(2), recv (2), recvfrom (2), recvmmsg(2) (also with a non-NULL timeout argument), and recvmsg(2).

• "Output" socket interfaces, when a timeout (SO_RCVTIMEO) has been set on the socket using setsockopt(2): connect(2), send(2), sendto(2), and sendmsg(2).

Check man 7 signal for more details.

---

A simple usage would be use signal to avoid recvfrom blocking indefinitely.

An example from APUE :

#include "apue.h"
#include <netdb.h>
#include <errno.h>
#include <sys/socket.h>

#define BUFLEN      128
#define TIMEOUT     20

void
sigalrm(int signo)
{
}

void
print_uptime(int sockfd, struct addrinfo *aip)
{
    int     n;
    char    buf[BUFLEN];

    buf[0] = 0;
    if (sendto(sockfd, buf, 1, 0, aip->ai_addr, aip->ai_addrlen) < 0)
        err_sys("sendto error");
    alarm(TIMEOUT);
    //here
    if ((n = recvfrom(sockfd, buf, BUFLEN, 0, NULL, NULL)) < 0) {
        if (errno != EINTR)
            alarm(0);
        err_sys("recv error");
    }
    alarm(0);
    write(STDOUT_FILENO, buf, n);
}

int
main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
    struct addrinfo     *ailist, *aip;
    struct addrinfo     hint;
    int                 sockfd, err;
    struct sigaction    sa;

    if (argc != 2)
        err_quit("usage: ruptime hostname");
    sa.sa_handler = sigalrm;
    sa.sa_flags = 0;
    sigemptyset(&sa.sa_mask);
    if (sigaction(SIGALRM, &sa, NULL) < 0)
        err_sys("sigaction error");
    memset(&hint, 0, sizeof(hint));
    hint.ai_socktype = SOCK_DGRAM;
    hint.ai_canonname = NULL;
    hint.ai_addr = NULL;
    hint.ai_next = NULL;
    if ((err = getaddrinfo(argv[1], "ruptime", &hint, &ailist)) != 0)
        err_quit("getaddrinfo error: %s", gai_strerror(err));

    for (aip = ailist; aip != NULL; aip = aip->ai_next) {
        if ((sockfd = socket(aip->ai_family, SOCK_DGRAM, 0)) < 0) {
            err = errno;
        } else {
            print_uptime(sockfd, aip);
            exit(0);
        }
    }

    fprintf(stderr, "can't contact %s: %s\n", argv[1], strerror(err));
    exit(1);
}

Answer 8

The only difference between recv() and read() is the presence of flags. With a zero flags argument, recv() is generally equivalent to read()

Answer 9

you can use write() and read() instead send() and recv() but send() and recv() offer much greater control over your data transmission