On Wed, 2009-03-04 at 08:08 +0900, PSPunch wrote:
> The earlier sounds like to introduce massive overhead caused by TCP
> headers, especially when we are speak of sending amounts of data that
> may flood the socket's "send buffer." In the later case, the OS may
> indicate that bytes entered the socket, while they were actually only
> buffered while the connection breaks and was never sent.
>
if i interprete my observations correctly, this is not a big deal, since
not every message sent to [tcpserver] will be transmitted in its own tcp
frame. at least on my box (ubuntu 8.04), they are sent seperately, if
there is at least a time interval of ~10ms between them. messages sent
with shorter intervals are concatenated into one frame.
said this, i have to add, that the above is only true, if the number of
elements of a lists on the receiving side represent the framesize. for
instance, when i plug out the ethernet cable and fill the buffer on the
sender side, then plug the cable back in, i get one big list with ~5000
elements on the receiving side (don't try to print that one, it will
hang pd)
roman
___________________________________________________________
Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail:
http://mail.yahoo.de
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
