Hello, I think using a single NIC, 64000 sockets could be possible for a proxy since we can define the local port of the client connections the same, right?
Best Regards, SZ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dod" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "ICS support mailing" <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2006 11:23 PM Subject: Re: [twsocket] Bandwidth counter for MT HTTP Server--what'sthefastestway? : Hello, : : 32000 max, whenever you could theorically reach this limit (which is : most usure because of Windows/Winsock/Network card drivers : limitations), you could may be add an option to manage two network : cards, one for managing incoming sessions, other to manage outgoing : sessions. This way, Winsock should be able to handle 64000 cnx per : network card. : : Considering the bandwidth question, instead of entering critical : section thousand time per second, there is a more non-blocking way. : Just create a timer that send some EVENT_TELL_ME_YOUR_COUNT to each : thread (this trigger no critical section), then each thread send back : an event to main app thread with the byte count as param, then just : do the calculation. : : Regards. : : FT> We also create one thread per CPU initially and load-balance among : FT> them so this should not be a big problem. : : FT> One other issue I have, for a reverse proxy, there cannot be more than : FT> ~32000 connections, right? I am speaking about the no-cache situation : FT> where there must be unique ports for a server and a client socket per : FT> each user with 64k sockets max. : : -- : To unsubscribe or change your settings for TWSocket mailing list : please goto http://www.elists.org/mailman/listinfo/twsocket : Visit our website at http://www.overbyte.be -- To unsubscribe or change your settings for TWSocket mailing list please goto http://www.elists.org/mailman/listinfo/twsocket Visit our website at http://www.overbyte.be
