do what ping does (ping -f) when you get an ENOBUFS do a usleep for 1 mSec. and then send it again.
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Stuart Pook wrote: > > On 23 Jan 2004, Don Lewis wrote: > > > the send does not give an error: the packet is just thrown away. > > > > Which is the same result as you would get if the bottleneck is just one > > network hop away instead of at the local NIC. > > But it isn't. I'm broadcasting onto the local network. With Linux and > Solaris (which implement what FreeBSD send(2) says), it is so easy: I just > send(2) away, and because the send blocks when the kernel buffer space is > full, I lose very few packets. With FreeBSD, I lose 60% of the packets. > (The aim is to broadcast onto a private 802.11b network.) > > If I don't want to saturate the network then I will use kernel level > traffic shaping to limit the outgoing bandwidth. I have already done this > on Linux when I was broadcasting onto my 802.11b network via an access > point connected via 100Mbits/s Ethernet. I just used traffic shaping > to limit the outgoing traffic on that Ethernet interface to 3Mbits/s. > I didn't have to change my program at all. (At one point I did try > to put the delays (with nanosleep) into my program but it worked very > badly because the scheduling delays were too big. The kernel does it > so much better.) Once again it is vital that send blocks. > > I guess that I'm out of luck with *BSD. I hope that someone will update > the send(2) man page so that the next person who wants to do what I'm > doing will know that it isn't possible with FreeBSD. > > Stuart > _______________________________________________ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
