Antol,
>> We realy need a reproducible test case. I searched the source
>> again but was not able to find a change that could lead to the
>> problem. Double check that you use latest ICSv7 from:
>> http://wiki.overbyte.be/wiki/index.php/ICS_Download
>
>> My OverbyteIcsFtpCli.pas is V7.17
>
> No, it is V7.12. I downloaded it with this pack:
> Download ICS-V7 Distribution (October, 2010)
> http://www.overbyte.be/frame_index.html?redirTo=/products/ics.html
>
>
> Now I looked more carefully and found daily sources archive with 7.17.
> I'll try it and let you know if there are any changes.
One big change in FtpCli V7.00 was increase of component's
internal buffer size. I plan to commit my private change like
below that allows to compile with different buffer sizes, for other
reasons. Though the chance is low that the big buffers cause the
problem, they might affect router behaviour, how knows? Add this
change and define for instance "FTPCLI_BUFFER_OLD" in your project
options to get back ICSV5 buffer sizes. Rebuild the project, a
simple compile won't be enough.
const
// BLOCK_SIZE = 1460; { 1514 - TCP header size }
{$IFDEF FTPCLI_BUFFER_OLD}
FTP_SND_BUF_SIZE = 1460; { arno V7.18 }
FTP_RCV_BUF_SIZE = 4096; { arno V7.18 }
{$ELSE}
{$IFDEF FTPCLI_BUFFER_SMALL}
FTP_SND_BUF_SIZE = 8192; { arno V7.18 }
FTP_RCV_BUF_SIZE = 8192; { arno V7.18 }
{$ELSE}
{$IFDEF FTPCLI_BUFFER_MEDIUM}
FTP_SND_BUF_SIZE = 16384; { arno V7.18 }
FTP_RCV_BUF_SIZE = 16384; { arno V7.18 }
{$ELSE}
FTP_SND_BUF_SIZE = 32768; { angus V7.00 increased from 1460 }
FTP_RCV_BUF_SIZE = 32768; { angus V7.00 increased from 4096 }
{$ENDIF}
{$ENDIF}
{$ENDIF}
--
Arno Garrels
>
> Additional info from the user:
> Note: 2.20 uses ICS5, 2.30 uses ICS7, TEM is The Evil Machine that
> doesn't work in passive mode.
>
> ======================
> Still, 2.20 in passive mode worked--and still works--from TEM but
> 2.30 in passive mode does not. That is most curious. Yes, routers
> are not very consistent, which I well understand. But, between 2.20
> and 2.30 on TEM the router does not change.... nor does the operating
> system... only the software changes. Even stranger still is that
> passive mode was developed to resolve a NAT issue. Testing any
> particular router by using active and then passive mode, it would be
> more likely active mode would fail. (The TEM router is, by the way,
> an old D-Link DIR-624 which was sold in UK not US.)
> ======================
>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Antol mailto:spama...@mail.ru
--
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
