Hmmmm... If it is taking your system 5 to 7 MINUTES to process 1000 connect / disconnect cycles, then something is very wrong.
I would have to rerun my tests, but I am thinking that I was doing > 1K connect / disconnects in about 10 to 15 seconds when running both server and client on a single core P4. Perhaps a little faster using several client instances at the same time, although the performance maxed quickly on a single core CPU. I believe it was much faster on a 4 way Xeon machine I tested it on. I can get more specific stats for you, if you want them. But, whatever my specific results were, 5 to 7 MINUTES is just WAY off. 1. What kind of machine is it? Commodore 64? TS-1000? TRS-80? Just kidding... ;) 2. Is your client class on the server initiating a bunch of additional processes, like database lookups or something? 3. Do you have any problems with other apps on your system running slow? Perhaps you have a bad driver or resource conflict with your NIC? Just some thoughts... Hoby -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 4:30 PM To: email@example.com 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 kept increasing the backlog value up until I reached 1000, but to my surprise, I noticed that the connections started failing after about 230 requests, out of 1000 clients. These were the first 230 requests, so the backlog queue was significantly less than its maximum. I also thought I noticed that the server was taking longer to respond, but didn't think much of it at the time. However, after reading your post I decided to try once again with a backlog of 5, and set a retry loop every time a connection failed. As expected, the connections started failing almost immediately after the test started. But much to my surprise, the connections were handled quicker -- sometimes orders of magnitude faster than before! As a reference, using my localhost as the server and client, with a test application spawning 1000 clients to connect one right after the other, and re-trying if they failed, it took about 5 to 7 minutes to process the entire lot; while it only took about 2 minutes to process with a backlog of 5. The test with a backlog limit of 5 retried much more times, of course, but when connections were established, they were processed faster. Still, it seems to me that TWSocketServer is taking too long to process incoming connections, as many connections can be queued in the backlog while its instantiating the client and dupping the socket. Any thoughts on this? -dZ. >------- Original Message ------- >From : Hoby Smith[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent : 11/28/2007 5:31:09 PM >To : firstname.lastname@example.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 was attempting to see how many connections could be handled by a particular process over a period of time. I believe my results showed that increasing this value can have a very negative effect on performance. Basically, the issue is inherent in how the TCP stack is implemented, not in how a particular app services the stack. I found that surpassing a particular connection rate threshold would result in an exponential gain in processing time on the listening stack. Meaning, the TCP stack performance decreases dramatically as you increase the number of pending connections, when the listening socket is receiving a high rate of connection requests. My assumption is that this is due to the increased overhead in managing the backlog queue. Given this, I made two observations, which may be wrong, but made sense to me. First, this is why the Winsock default is 5. I imagine that the Winsock stack implementation was designed with the perspective that if the backlog is actually filling up enough to reach 5 or more, then something is wrong. Probably, a couple more might be ok, but my results showed that as you increased this value under heavy load, your connection rate was very unpredictable, as well as instable (lots of failed connects). For the TCP/IP stack to be effective, it must be responsive enough to handle the low level connection requests in a timely fashion. If not, then you have a major low level servicing problem or the machine is seriously overloaded with TCP requests. In which case, you want to get connection errors, rather than an overloaded backlog scenario. Second, increasing this value surely creates a greater DOS attack surface, making you more vulnerable to bursts of socket open requests, and surely would make the effects of such an attack even worse. This might also be why the Winsock default is 5. However, as I personally don't think that there is really a practical solution to a well designed DOS attack, then this might not really be relevant. Nonetheless, it might be something you need to consider. So, given that, I personally don't recommend increasing the value. If your app can't service the stack with a backlog setting close to 5, then your system is just overloaded or not responsive for some reason. Anyway, that is what I determined from my testing results. If anyone has found to the contrary, please feel free to correct me... :) -----Original Message----- -- To unsubscribe or change your settings for TWSocket mailing list please goto http://lists.elists.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twsocket Visit our website at http://www.overbyte.be -- To unsubscribe or change your settings for TWSocket mailing list please goto http://lists.elists.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twsocket Visit our website at http://www.overbyte.be