From owner-freebsd-net Sun Jun 3 16:42:18 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from rhymer.cogsci.ed.ac.uk (rhymer.cogsci.ed.ac.uk [129.215.144.8]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29E7037B403 for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2001 16:42:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk) Received: from banks.cogsci.ed.ac.uk (banks [129.215.144.55]) by rhymer.cogsci.ed.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA20249; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 00:42:14 +0100 (BST) Received: (from richard@localhost) by banks.cogsci.ed.ac.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id AAA26639; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 00:42:14 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 00:42:14 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <200106032342.AAA26639@banks.cogsci.ed.ac.uk> From: Richard Tobin Subject: Re: help with mbufs To: Richard Tobin , freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: Richard Tobin's message of Sun, 3 Jun 2001 22:55:53 +0100 (BST) Organization: just say no Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Answering my own question: > I expected that after getting ENOBUFS, the peak value would be equal > to the maximum. It seems that it wasn't actually a shortage of mbufs, but rather the socket's send or receive queue full, fixable with setsockopt. This possibility is mentioned on the man page for send(2), but not for write(2). -- Richard To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message