Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID:	<3D45B32A.7020503@netscape.net>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 17:27:06 -0400
From:	Nicholas Wourms <nwourms AT netscape DOT net>
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win 9x 4.90; en-US; rv:1.0rc2) Gecko/20020512 Netscape/7.0b1
X-Accept-Language:	en-us, en
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	Conrad Scott <Conrad DOT Scott AT dsl DOT pipex DOT com>
CC:	cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: TCP problems
References:	<010901c23724$96e5d430$6132bc3e AT BABEL> <3D4581E4 DOT BB580995 AT ieee DOT org> <005801c23730$02304170$6132bc3e AT BABEL> <3D459257 DOT 240C79DC AT ieee DOT org> <009c01c23736$4a61a4b0$6132bc3e AT BABEL> <3D45A95A DOT 10207 AT netscape DOT net> <00b801c23744$49ec4540$6132bc3e AT BABEL>

Conrad Scott wrote:

>"Nicholas Wourms" <nwourms AT netscape DOT net> wrote:
>
>>Perhaps we could implement a counter to ascertain exactly how
>>
>many
>
>>cycles until dies?  Either that or I could pipe netstat to a
>>
>file and
>
>>have nano count how many open sockets there are...  That figure
>>
>should
>
>>not be taken as exact, due to the fact I didn't run 'time' and
>>
>was
>
>>guessing when you asked.
>>
>
>You could run the client through (something like):
>
>    client <xxx> | grep 'connect' | wc
>
>But I was more interested in the error codes than in the exact
>number of sockets. That can be affected by lots of things, such as
>registry parameters.
>
Well I am configured for standard 100bT access, so it might be possible 
that the MTU's are different.

>Also my guess is that on your system, the last connect was to
>socket 4999 or 5000?  Especially with the EADDRINUSE error that
>you got at another point, which probably indicates that all the
>temporary sockets (1024-5000 ?) were in TIME_WAIT state.  I can't
>ever hit that problem, 'cos my computer's not quick enough :-(
>[just guessing here].
>
The machine runs slow as dog s**t though after running the tests.  Any 
attempt to generate a sound results in it hanging for ~45sec.  *Sigh* I 
guess that's what you get from software driven soundcards...

>
>BTW, what was the machine set up for this? (windows version,
>memory size?).
>
WindowsME, Athlon-4 1.1GHz, 320MB

Cheers,
Nicholas

- Raw text -