Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 17:57:03 +0700 From: Vadim Goncharov <vadim_nuclight@mail.ru> To: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r222688 - head/sbin/hastd Message-ID: <201106061057.p56Av3u7037614@kernblitz.nuclight.avtf.net> In-Reply-To: <4DEA653F.7070503@FreeBSD.org> References: <201106041601.p54G1Ut7016697@svn.freebsd.org> <BA66495E-AED3-459F-A5CD-69B91DB359BC@lists.zabbadoz.net> <4DEA653F.7070503@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Maxim Sobolev! On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 10:02:55 -0700; Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> wrote: >> I don't know about the hast internal protocol but the above reads kind of >> wrong to me. > Hmm, not sure what exactly is wrong? Sender does 3 writes to the TCP > socket - 32k, 32k and 1071 bytes, while receiver does one > recv(MSG_WAITALL) with the size of 66607. So I suspect sender's kernel > does deliver two 32k packets and fills up receiver's buffer or > something. And the remaining 1071 bytes stay somewhere in sender's > kernel indefinitely, while recv() cannot complete in receiver's. Using > the same size when doing recv() solves the issue for me. I'm also don't know the hast internal protocol, but the very need to adjust some *user* buffers while using _TCP_ is pretty strange: TCP doesn't depend on sender's behavior only. May be setsockopt(SO_RCVBUF) needs to be used. Also, why recv() is ever there on TCP, instead of read() ? Is that blocking or non-blocking read? In the latter case kqueue(2) is very usfeul. -- WBR, Vadim Goncharov. ICQ#166852181 mailto:vadim_nuclight@mail.ru [Moderator of RU.ANTI-ECOLOGY][FreeBSD][http://antigreen.org][LJ:/nuclight]
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201106061057.p56Av3u7037614>