Thanks for the quick replies.
>> I had expected that if a server creates a listening socket, but does not
>> accept() the incoming connections, then after the (possibly
fudge-factored)
>> Is this all expected behaviour? If so, is there a way of getting Linux
to
>> behave more like other implementations here? (As a wild shot I tried
setting
>> /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_syncookies to 0, but this made no apparent
>> difference.)
>
>The world of tcp synflooding changed how stacks handle this sort of
>stuff forever. Welcome to the new world order 8)
Yes, I was gathering that it was synflooding that led to these changes.
>You will get connections completing, they will time out.
What causes the delay of a few seconds following each of the connect()s
in excess of backlog?
> If you expect
>the server to say something you'll see the timeout there instead of
>seeing it on the connect.
Sorry, I don't quite understand this last sentence! Can you elaborate?
>Since a timeout on the data can happen in the real world Im sure your
>code already correctly handles this case ;)
You mean on a send() or write(), right?
Cheers
Michael
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/