delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: cygwin-developers/2002/07/29/18:20:28

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: <014301c2374e$53eea240$6132bc3e@BABEL>
From: "Conrad Scott" <Conrad DOT Scott AT dsl DOT pipex DOT com>
To: "Pierre A. Humblet" <Pierre DOT Humblet AT ieee DOT org>
Cc: <cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
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> <3D459CEC DOT 35B29D99 AT ieee DOT org> <00f901c23747$168054f0$6132bc3e AT BABEL> <3D45B82A DOT DC1005E7 AT ieee DOT org>
Subject: Re: TCP problems
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 23:21:46 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000

"Pierre A. Humblet" <Pierre DOT Humblet AT ieee DOT org> wrote:
> > I'll try some more combinations, but interestingly I can't
> > recreate this with my direct winsock2 server: linger or not it
> > runs forever too.  I'll try some more combinations.
>
> Weird. Cygwin also makes direct Windows calls. There must be
> a slight difference.

And it's that damn difference I'm searching for: the only thing
that pops to mind at the moment is that cygwin puts the socket
into non-blocking mode, w/ WSAEventSelect, in
fhandler_socket::accept.  I'll try cooking up a native winsock2
server that does that too.

> > Another strangeness I'm getting is that if I run netstat -a on
my
> > win98/SE box, it never shows more than 10 connections (e.g.
one
> > LISTENING and nine, the most recent nine port numbers, in
> > TIME_WAIT).  This is regardless of the other changes I've
> > described.  There must be more ports in TIME_WAIT than that
> > (especially with the linger setting in cygwin) so what's up?
Is
> > netstat known to be dodgy on win98?
>
> Not that I know of.
> Note that netstat is showing you connections, not sockets in
use.
> They are different. E.g. with shutdown () the connections are
gone
> but you can get WSAENOBUFS, indicating the sockets are still
using
> space.

I thought netstat showed ports in use: e.g., ports that are in
TIME_WAIT w/o being connected to anything are normally shown after
you've quit the applications using them?  In any case, for me it's
showing nine TIME_WAIT ports when the server and client each only
have one connection open at any time.  On my win2k box, it always
shows at most 1000 ports in TIME_WAIT state, regardless of how
many I've just been using.  There must be a limit somewhere here.

For the moment,

// Conrad



- Raw text -


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