Just to restate my original email - XP is only used for clients -
good old OSX is used for the Server (no problems at all as far as my
testing has shown - had 30 concurrent connections at least)
Can anyone comment on the system load of either OS on keeping a
connection alive - it clearly talks to the other end for maintenance
purposes at the TCP stack level I presume?
The only either comment I have on my original question is it appears
that - If you get a connection each time you want to send a message,
then the time to error a broken/missing connection is faster than
waiting for a timeout on a previously established socket and the OS
triggering its error message - that is error on .connect is faster
than error on socket.write
Thanks for the comments on the subject
Tim
On 28/12/2006, at 7:44 AM, Fargo Holiday wrote:
No, the limitation was imposed on XP strictly after SP2. Before
that it was limited to around 65000. Specifically this is supposed
to only apply to half open, or SYN, connections, but that hasn't
been my experience. Prior versions of winsock would attempt to open
connections up to the limit of the platforms idea of an unsigned
word, just like XP used to be. I thought I already stated that
every security feature would disable such a hack, and further I
want to make it clear that including such a thing in your software
would be a massive liability waiting to happen.
I never suggested any use it, yet tons of people do. So, if he
wants to distribute to a large market share, Windows will likely
come up. Vista isn't likely to be any better.
MySQL also runs on Windows. And OS X. So, it's a good option
regardless. So is Postgres, which has the added benefit of being a
company not run by tards.
Later,
Fargo
dxGiodx wrote:
Hmmm,
My 2 cents. It has been my understanding from the beggining of XP
and other Win OS's that the desktop OS's have always had a 10
connection limitation. Using patches/hacks to overcome a security
feature(according to MS) is a no no because every time there is a
patch, you will have to re-aply the hack which may not even work.
Since XP is not built for networked optimization in comparison to
any server version of the OS, why would you want to use any Win
Desktop OS's? There are tremendous benefit on using Server class
OS's. If the cost of ownership of the server class OS's is too
much look in to a Linux based solution.
If it is cost, use a Linux implementation as it will possibly
require less resources, less maintenance and cost the same for
MySQL licensing(incase is a commercial app).
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
