Dave Higton, on 7 Feb, wrote: > On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 23:38:10 GMT Geoffrey Baxendale wrote: > > > In message <c42a61d553.davem...@my.inbox.com> > > Dave Higton <d...@davehigton.me.uk> wrote: > > > > > In message <mpro.n0iifp008cgrh041t.pit...@pittdj.co.uk> > >> David Pitt <pit...@pittdj.co.uk> wrote: [snip] > > > > I have resurrected a Socket Counter application, !SockCtr, which > > > > dates back to the time when Oregano2 managed to do a similar trick. > > > > It is a frontend to David Ruck's SocketCount. > >>> > > > > http://pittdj.co.uk/software/index.htm [snip] > > As far as I can tell, 1614 is OK and 1635 not. Don't have any builds > > between those here. When I have more time I will try and narrow it down > > further. (All Non JS) > > Geoff, can you use SockCtr and see if 1614 reclaims sockets under the same > circumstances as 1356? This is worth adding to the bug report.
Or try #1699, bug 2064 is now marked as resolved. The socket count has not gone below 60 here so far, having started at 90 on the Raspberry Pi. -- David Pitt
