delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: cygwin-developers/2002/07/29/16:45:45

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: <3D45A95A.10207@netscape.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 16:45:14 -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: "Pierre A. Humblet" <Pierre DOT Humblet AT ieee DOT org>,
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>

Conrad Scott wrote:

>"Pierre A. Humblet" <Pierre DOT Humblet AT ieee DOT org> wrote:
>
>>Conrad Scott wrote:
>>
>>>Sorry: I should have been clearer there.  No: my test cygwin
>>>server doesn't duplicate any of its sockets (AFAICT etc. but
>>>
>I'm
>
>>>pretty sure).
>>>
>>Just to make sure I understand: it NEVER forks. Correct?
>>
>
>Never.  Ever ever.  Ever.  Not even once.
>
>
>>>It's a really simple server: blocking accept,
>>>read/write on the new file descriptor, then shutdown/close it
>>>
>and
>
>>>back to a blocking accept.  And it still hits the WASENOBUFS
>>>
>wall
>
>>>eventually (altho' it can be delayed by registry patches to
>>>increase various TCP parameters).
>>>
>>How long/how many accepts (more or less) is "eventually".
>>
>
>On my lovely little win98/SE box: one hundred connections minus a
>few.
>
>Nicholas Wourms (my (un)willing test accomplice) reported "~3
>minutes" of run time before hitting the same error: so he's
>getting a thousand or so (?) connections by the sounds of it.
>
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.

Cheers,
Nicholas

- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019