Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 16:51:09 -0800 From: "Kevin M. Lahey" <kml@nas.nasa.gov> To: Jim Shankland <jas@flyingfox.com> Cc: j@lumiere.net, freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: mbuf clusters and socket send buffers (was Re: 3.1-STABLE dies on 40+ connects) Message-ID: <199903260051.QAA17517@gecko.nas.nasa.gov> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 25 Mar 1999 16:54:16 PST." <199903260054.QAA22060@biggusdiskus.flyingfox.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <199903260054.QAA22060@biggusdiskus.flyingfox.com>, Jim Shankland writes: >A thought related to this discussion: does it make sense to allow the >send buffers to be larger than the peer's advertised window size? >In other words, why "preposition" those bytes in the kernel before >the peer has indicated a willingness to accept them? Interestingly enough, no memory is actually used until data arrives. The socket buffer size is merely a cap on the amount of memory that could possibly be allocated for that connection. Kevin kml@nas.nasa.gov To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199903260051.QAA17517>