: twsocket@elists.org
>Cc :
>Subject : RE: Re: [twsocket] TWSocketServer and backlog
>
>Hey DZ. Sorry, I didn't mean to drop out of this
email thread. I have just
been slammed for the last week and didn't have a
chance to response to any
of the further posts on this (they were
TECTED] On
Behalf Of DZ-Jay
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 4:52 AM
To: ICS support mailing
Subject: Re: [twsocket] TWSocketServer and backlog
Wait, I'm sorry, I perhaps did not explain correctly: It was taking 5
to 7 minutes for the server to *process* the client's request to
compl
On Nov 29, 2007, at 14:20, Arno Garrels wrote:
> Hard to tell, a good compromise is using TWSocketServer given
> any lengthy task is run in worker threads. I think separating
> socket IO work from other tasks by using worker threads for those
> tasks considered "lengthy" is the way to go. The def
ot; is the way to go. The definition of
"lengthy" however is another story then.
--
Arno Garrels
>-dZ.
>
>> Sent: 11/29/2007 1:52:38 PM
>> To : twsocket@elists.org
>> Cc :
>> Subject : RE: Re: [twsocket] TWSocketServer and backlog
>>
&g
that I don't
have to redesign it right now.
-dZ.
>Sent: 11/29/2007 1:52:38 PM
>To : twsocket@elists.org
>Cc :
>Subject : RE: Re: [twsocket] TWSocketServer and backlog
>
>DZ-Jay wrote:
> On Nov 29, 2007, at 06:10, Wilfried Mestdagh wrote:
>
>&g
DZ-Jay wrote:
> On Nov 29, 2007, at 06:10, Wilfried Mestdagh wrote:
>
>> Hello DZ-Jay,
>>
>> So conclusion is that increasing the backlog does:
>>- decrease the performance for accepting connections
>>- decrease the overall performance of the application
>
> This seems to be the conclusi
On Nov 29, 2007, at 06:10, Wilfried Mestdagh wrote:
> Hello DZ-Jay,
>
> So conclusion is that increasing the backlog does:
>- decrease the performance for accepting connections
>- decrease the overall performance of the application
This seems to be the conclusion of mine and Huby's tests
Hello DZ-Jay,
So conclusion is that increasing the backlog does:
- decrease the performance for accepting connections
- decrease the overall performance of the application
Also:
- connecting clients should have a range of retry's when refused,
eventually with a random small delay.
For yo
Wait, I'm sorry, I perhaps did not explain correctly: It was taking 5
to 7 minutes for the server to *process* the client's request to
completion, not the connection. My tests, although quick and dirty,
are intended to check the behaviour of my application as a whole, not
just the connection.
org
Subject: Re: [twsocket] TWSocketServer and backlog
Hello:
Thank you for your very informative response. I
was performing some tests on my server application by
continually increasing the backlog value with some
mixed results, which seem to coincide with your
empirical analysis.
I k
socket@elists.org
>Cc :
>Subject : RE: Re: [twsocket] TWSocketServer and backlog
>
>FYI... I ran into an issue with some test code I
wrote a few months ago,
which related to the backlog setting, as well as the
annoying issue with
Winsock running out of local ports. In my test, I
w
D] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 12:58 PM
To: twsocket@elists.org
Subject: Re: [twsocket] TWSocketServer and backlog
Hello:
The problem with retrying is that it is not the same
as a "server full" error when the maximum number of
clients is reached; 1000
r the help.
-dZ.
>--- Original Message ---
>From: Wilfried
Mestdagh[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: 11/28/2007 2:26:49 PM
>To : twsocket@elists.org
>Cc :
>Subject : RE: Re: [twsocket] TWSocketServer and backlog
>
>Hello dz,
a client appli
t: 11/28/2007 2:22:46 PM
>To : twsocket@elists.org
>Cc :
>Subject : RE: Re: [twsocket] TWSocketServer and backlog
>
>Paul wrote:
> I always use 500, no problems yet
But the ListenbacklogQueue is limited in size depending
on the OS (cannot recall the values, how
Hello dz,
I think 5 is the winsock default value
---
Rgds, Wilfried [TeamICS]
http://www.overbyte.be/eng/overbyte/teamics.html
http://www.mestdagh.biz
Wednesday, November 28, 2007, 19:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>--- Original Message ---
>>From: Paul[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
Hello dz,
a client application should do at least a few (or infinity) retry's if
connection fails. so normally not needed to increase it. On the other
hand it does no harm to increase it.
---
Rgds, Wilfried [TeamICS]
http://www.overbyte.be/eng/overbyte/teamics.html
http://www.mestdagh.biz
Wednes
e -
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 6:27 PM
> Subject: [twsocket] TWSocketServer and backlog
>
>
>> Hello:
>>While stress-testing my application, I noticed
>> that I am able to send substantially many more
>&g
>--- Original Message ---
>From: Paul[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> I always use 500, no problems yet
Thanks for the quick reply.
Then, is there a particular reason why it defaults to
5? It seems too low for all but the most trivial
applications (given that spawning the client object
I always use 500, no problems yet
Paul
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 6:27 PM
Subject: [twsocket] TWSocketServer and backlog
> Hello:
>While stress-testing my application, I noticed
> that I am able to sen
Hello:
While stress-testing my application, I noticed
that I am able to send substantially many more
connections in the time it takes the TWSocketServer
to handle the incomming requests, causing the default
backlog to fill up quickly. Obviously, I can
increase the number, but seeing that the d
20 matches
Mail list logo
