Felipe Almeida Lessa wrote:
> 2006/9/3, Alex Martelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Reflecting on the OP's use case, since all connections are forever being
> > made to the same 16 servers, why not tweak thinks a bit to hold those
> > connections open for longer periods of time, using a connection for m
Felipe Almeida Lessa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2006/9/3, Alex Martelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Reflecting on the OP's use case, since all connections are forever being
> > made to the same 16 servers, why not tweak thinks a bit to hold those
> > connections open for longer periods of time, usi
2006/9/3, Alex Martelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Reflecting on the OP's use case, since all connections are forever being
> made to the same 16 servers, why not tweak thinks a bit to hold those
> connections open for longer periods of time, using a connection for many
> send/receive "transactions" in
Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> >>set registry key:
>
>>KEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Parameters\M
axUserPort
> >>
> >>to a new DWORD value... (5000 - 65534)
> >>The default in XP is 3976 -> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/Q149532
I wonder why (perform
Tor Erik wrote:
> Tor Erik wrote:
>
>>Fredrik Lundh wrote:
>>
>>>Tor Erik wrote:
>>>
>>>
The reason is that my application does about 16 connects and data
transfers per second, to the same 16 remote hosts. After approx 200
secs there are 4000 sockets waiting to be garbage collected b
Tor Erik wrote:
> Fredrik Lundh wrote:
>> Tor Erik wrote:
>>
>>> The reason is that my application does about 16 connects and data
>>> transfers per second, to the same 16 remote hosts. After approx 200
>>> secs there are 4000 sockets waiting to be garbage collected by the OS.
>>
>> what does "ne
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> Tor Erik wrote:
>
>> The reason is that my application does about 16 connects and data
>> transfers per second, to the same 16 remote hosts. After approx 200
>> secs there are 4000 sockets waiting to be garbage collected by the OS.
>
> what does "netstat" say about these
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>I've read about SO_REUSEADDR. As far as I understand, this is what
>>SO_REUSEADDR is for:
>
>
>
>>I've tried setting this option, but could not see any notable changes...
>
>
> I was having a similiar problem as you, where as soon as my program
> exited, it would
Tor Erik wrote:
> The reason is that my application does about 16 connects and data
> transfers per second, to the same 16 remote hosts. After approx 200 secs
> there are 4000 sockets waiting to be garbage collected by the OS.
what does "netstat" say about these sockets ?
--
http://mail.pyt
> I've read about SO_REUSEADDR. As far as I understand, this is what
> SO_REUSEADDR is for:
...
> I've tried setting this option, but could not see any notable changes...
I was having a similiar problem as you, where as soon as my program
exited, it would get started up again, but could not bind t
Sybren Stuvel wrote:
> Tor Erik enlightened us with:
>> The reason is that my application does about 16 connects and data
>> transfers per second, to the same 16 remote hosts. After approx 200
>> secs there are 4000 sockets waiting to be garbage collected by the
>> OS.
>
> Which OS are we talking
Hi,
The reason is that my application does about 16 connects and data
transfers per second, to the same 16 remote hosts. After approx 200 secs
there are 4000 sockets waiting to be garbage collected by the OS. At
this point is seems that connect loops and starts using the same local
addresses i
12 matches
Mail list logo
