From owner-freebsd-net  Thu Mar 25 15:43:10 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from biggusdiskus.flyingfox.com (parker-T1-2-gw.sf3d.best.net [209.157.165.30])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADAEB14D64
	for <freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 15:43:09 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from jas@flyingfox.com)
Received: (from jas@localhost)
	by biggusdiskus.flyingfox.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) id QAA22060;
	Thu, 25 Mar 1999 16:54:16 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 16:54:16 -0800 (PST)
From: Jim Shankland <jas@flyingfox.com>
Message-Id: <199903260054.QAA22060@biggusdiskus.flyingfox.com>
To: j@lumiere.net
Subject: mbuf clusters and socket send buffers (was Re: 3.1-STABLE dies on 40+ connects)
Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9903251452370.1470-100000@leaf.lumiere.net>
Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

A thought related to this discussion:  does it make sense to allow the
send buffers to be larger than the peer's advertised window size?
In other words, why "preposition" those bytes in the kernel before
the peer has indicated a willingness to accept them?

Jim Shankland
NLynx Systems, Inc.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message