Darren Reed writes: > >I can imagine at least three different intended semantics for this > >ioctl when used with TCP: > > > > 1. It reports all unsent data. > > > > 2. It reports all unsent and unacknowledged data. > > > > I've come across people who think they want (1) for the purpose > of being able to bill on the number of bytes they've sent from their > application.
So, if their system has sent something, but the network itself eats it or my browser crashes before I get to see it, then I still have to pay for it. That sounds like somewhat less than a completely scrupulous business practice to me. > It's debatable whether or not they really want (2) but they didn't > want (3). > > To address their problem, we recommended they use a dtrace script > to monitor how much data was discarded when the socket was closed. Or just make an estimate. Any reasonable guess is bound to be as accurate as attempting to measure data that the remote application likely hasn't even read yet. (And if they're not comfortable feeding guesses into a billing system, then I'd question the original strategy attempted ...) -- James Carlson, KISS Network <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
