This looks like a bug in the docs; the intention is that datagram protocols
also support flow control. Where does it say so in the docs? Is it the PEP
or the CPython Doc tree?
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Christopher Probst
foxnet.develo...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi,
after looking into
I saw this in the official 3.4rc1 doc.
The doc says, that flow-control callbacks are valid for Protocols and
SubprocessProtocols, but DatagramProtocol is not specified.
Though I'm happy that Datagram control flow is officially supported I have
now an other problem which is directly connected
Have you tried reducing the write buffer size?
On Feb 23, 2014 10:41 AM, Christopher Probst
foxnet.develo...@googlemail.com wrote:
I saw this in the official 3.4rc1 doc.
The doc says, that flow-control callbacks are valid for Protocols and
SubprocessProtocols, but DatagramProtocol is not
Yes, if I reduce the write buffer size the problem occurs later but it does
occur. size ~ time to crash.
I read about a kernel setting on OSX called sysctl kern.ipc.maxsockbuf
which actually relates to the real udp socket sndbuf size.
The only real fix I could imagine would be to catch the
Reliable UDP? Isn't that a contradiction?
On Sunday, February 23, 2014, Christopher Probst
foxnet.develo...@googlemail.com wrote:
Thanks for your help so far, I really appreciate it.
A manual backoff seems the best solution for this weird behavior for now,
since reliable udp heavily depends
Well in a sense, yes. But even TCP uses unreliable packet based transport
under the hood (IP). RUDP is basically reimplementing TCP on top of UDP (in
a sense). It's even kind of
definedhttp://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sigtran-reliable-udp-00.
But yes, it's a contradiction, I have the
