kevinconway added the comment:
Added a comment to the .accept() loop with a reference to the issue.
--
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file44321/multi-accept-3.patch
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue27
kevinconway added the comment:
I've added a unit test to the patch that asserts sock.accept() is called the
appropriate number of times.
Worth a note, I had to adjust one of the existing tests to account for the new
backlog argument. There is a default value for the argument to pre
kevinconway added the comment:
I'll dig into the existing asyncio unit tests and see what I can come up with.
I'm not sure, yet, exactly what I might test for.
The variables involved with reproducing the error are mostly environmental. CPU
speed of the host, amount of CPU bound work
kevinconway added the comment:
Attaching the patch file
--
keywords: +patch
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file44287/multi-accept.patch
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue27
New submission from kevinconway:
My organization noticed this issue after launching several asyncio services
that would receive either a sustained high number of incoming connections or
regular bursts of traffic. Our monitoring showed a loss of between 4% and 6% of
all incoming requests. On
