I did notice anywhere from 20 to 50 milliseconds improvement for each
data connection creation. The fix is checked in now to the trunk.
Regards,
Sai Pullabhotla
www.jMethods.com
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Niklas Gustavssonnik...@protocol7.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 10:01 PM, Sai
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Sai
Pullabhotlasai.pullabho...@jmethods.com wrote:
I did notice anywhere from 20 to 50 milliseconds improvement for each
data connection creation. The fix is checked in now to the trunk.
Great work, thanks!
/niklas
Okay, done!
I also have another question around the same code...Should we be
checking the remote address and make sure it matches with the IP
address of the remote host on the control connection. If we do not do
this check, it is possible for a hacker to connect to this port before
the original
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Sai
Pullabhotlasai.pullabho...@jmethods.com wrote:
I also have another question around the same code...Should we be
checking the remote address and make sure it matches with the IP
address of the remote host on the control connection. If we do not do
this check,
I'm not sure, I think it should go to the main trunk as well.
Sai Pullabhotla
www.jMethods.com
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Niklas Gustavssonnik...@protocol7.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Sai
Pullabhotlasai.pullabho...@jmethods.com wrote:
I also have another question around
I'm also wondering if we could perform better with SSL, if we cache
the SSLContext and SSLSocketFactory. Currently, every data connection
creates the SSLContext (even though the context parameters are the
same) and gets the SocketFacotry from the context. Instead, we should
create the SSLContext
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Sai
Pullabhotlasai.pullabho...@jmethods.com wrote:
I'm not sure, I think it should go to the main trunk as well.
Trunk is 1.1.X so we're saying the same thing :-). I don't think it
should go into 1.0.x.
/niklas
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 10:01 PM, Sai
Pullabhotlasai.pullabho...@jmethods.com wrote:
[snip]
I know we may not notice much time difference with this change, but
every little things add up, especially under high loads.
Did you see any performance improvements in your local copy? Anyways,
I think
I've been noticing that the passive data connections are taking quite
some time when using SSL. I finally got some time to look into this
and noticed the following while debugging through the code. This issue
might have been introduced with the fix we put in for FTPSERVER-241.
The code that wraps
I believe this problem has been reported multiple times. Please open a
JIRA and apply the patch, it makes perfect sense.
/niklas
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Sai
Pullabhotlasai.pullabho...@jmethods.com wrote:
I've been noticing that the passive data connections are taking quite
some time
10 matches
Mail list logo
