From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Nov 14 14:46:01 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id OAA13037 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 14:46:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from quagmire.ki.net (root@quagmire.ki.net [205.150.102.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA12781 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 14:43:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (scrappy@localhost) by quagmire.ki.net (8.8.2/8.7.5) with SMTP id RAA10291; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 17:43:47 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 17:43:46 -0500 (EST) From: "Marc G. Fournier" To: John Polstra cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Sockets question... In-Reply-To: <199611142115.NAA10054@austin.polstra.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, 14 Nov 1996, John Polstra wrote: > > Ack...that sounds like exactly the problem...I misunderstood > > the read() call :( > > > > Why does 512k work fine though? no data lose at all.... > > > > I'm going to code in your suggestion above, but I'm very > > curious now as to why 512bytes and 80bytes both work cleanly, but > > 256bytes "loses" data... > > It depends on so many things, all timing related. Tomorrow you might > try it again and see it behave entirely differently. Run the server on > a machine on the other side of the Internet, and it will behave > differently still. You just can't reliably predict what it's going to > do. > Okay, makes sense...I'll fix the code tonight, thanks... Marc G. Fournier scrappy@ki.net Systems Administrator @ ki.net scrappy@freebsd.org