Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 10:36:29 +0100 From: "Robert N. M. Watson" <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru> Cc: Lev Serebryakov <lev@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD problems and preliminary ways to solve Message-ID: <FBF0BBA4-7694-438C-93CF-84E25ABAFF73@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20110819090536.GA92576@zxy.spb.ru> References: <slrnj4oiiq.21rg.vadim_nuclight@kernblitz.nuclight.avtf.net> <810527321.20110819123700@serebryakov.spb.ru> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1108190939340.93669@fledge.watson.org> <319607032.20110819125005@serebryakov.spb.ru> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1108190954420.93669@fledge.watson.org> <20110819090536.GA92576@zxy.spb.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 19 Aug 2011, at 10:05, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: >> Is the issue here that FreeBSD is dropping more packes, or just that FreeBSD >> is reporting that it drops packets? Historically, we've returned ENOBUFS from >> datagram sockets when the interface queue is overflowed, but some other >> systems (most noticeably Linux) simply return success when they drop a packet >> on an outgoing interface queue. You can debate which is the better model, but >> one impact is that sometimes people report errors on FreeBSD that they don't >> see on Linux -- when actually, the same failure is present, we just allow the >> application to learn about it. > > Historically, Linux on datagram (UDP) socket allow use select, FreeBSD > -- don't allow. FreeBSD always report 'UDP socket ready to transmit'. > And after try to send packet -- 'oops, ENOBUFS'. And if you have two consumers sending UDP on Linux, they both get unreported 50% packet loss, to my understanding? Robert
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?FBF0BBA4-7694-438C-93CF-84E25ABAFF73>