On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 11:36:36PM -0700, Cory Albrecht wrote:
> --- Xperex Tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Personally, I don't consider SSL_ERROR_WANT_WRITE to be an error. If
> > you are going to use
> > non-blocking sockets then you are going to have to expect that
> > sometimes the socket won't be ready
> > for writing. OpenSSL doen't want to busy-wait in that case so it
> > returns to you so you can do
> > something else while waiting for the socket to be ready. You can
> > have a thread block on select
> > call, for example.
>
> I understand that, but my problem is nothing so simple as a sometimes
> the socket isn't ready problem.
>
> Like I said, I've verified that the receiving end has received all the
> data for which SSL_write() had returned successfully, so it's not
> merely a saturated output buffer on the socket that will drain when the
> network subsystem is given time to catch up.
>
> With buffer sizes of 8193 bytes or more, after SSL_write() returns an
> error it NEVER succedes ever again on that socket. My program does it's
> something else tasks, trying about every 0.1s to send more data with
> SSL_write(). But SSL_write() always returns -1 and SSL_get_error()
> always return SSL_ERROR_WANT_WRITE. I even let it continue over night
> once - 10 hours with no change.
>
> With a buffer size of 8192 bytes or less this problem NEVER happens.
Doesn't make sense to me.
In your report you pointed out to use a 0.9.7 snapshot but you did
leave out information about your platform.
Best regards,
Lutz
--
Lutz Jaenicke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.aet.TU-Cottbus.DE/personen/jaenicke/
BTU Cottbus, Allgemeine Elektrotechnik
Universitaetsplatz 3-4, D-03044 Cottbus
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
