Linux should do the same thing, and it's actually a very important feature. A lot of protocols rely on this behavior, such as both TCP and UDP NAT traversal.
That said, I'm unclear why so many of the examples use setReuseAddress, although I think I remember Trustin saying it improved performance in his tests. Not sure why that would be the case, but it could be the reason. -Adam On 8/21/07, 向秦贤 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > IMHO， there is BIG problem, Layer. > even this way can be done, It not tcp stack concept. > maybe it's problem about a chain of responsibility. > If I work this, I would build a listening process, and dispatch some work > to > different worker do details. > > Regards, > > 2007/8/20, Maarten Bosteels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > Hello all, > > > > I am witnessing some very weird behavior: two processes listening on > the > > same TCP port on the same machine. > > using Windows XP Professional > > > > I thought this might be possible because my portable is multi-homed > (wired > > + > > wireless network) ? > > But I disabled the wireless network and it still works. > > > > 1st process = org.apache.mina.example.chat.Main > > 2nd process = org.apache.mina.example.chat.SpringMain > > > > Running two instances of org.apache.mina.example.chat.Main gives the > > expected "Address already in use" > > but it seems I can start as many instances of SpringMain as I want (I > > tried > > upto 6) > > > > Ok, this behavior is clearly a consequence of setting reuseAddress=true > on > > the SocketAcceptor > > but I have never witnessed this behavior on linux. > > > > Does anybody know whether this is a documented feature on Windows ? > > > > C:\netstat -na | grep 1234 > > TCP 0.0.0.0:1234 0.0.0.0:0 LISTENING > > TCP 0.0.0.0:1234 0.0.0.0:0 LISTENING > > TCP 127.0.0.1:1234 127.0.0.1:1379 ESTABLISHED > > TCP 127.0.0.1:1379 127.0.0.1:1234 ESTABLISHED > > (unfortunately netstat on windows doesn't have the -p option to show > > process > > id of listening process) > > > > Changing localAddress from ":1234" to "127.0.0.1:1234" or " > > 192.168.0.5:1234" doesn't make a difference. > > > > Clients seem to connect to the process that was started last. > > And when that server stops, new connections are accepted by an 'older' > > server. > > > > Maarten > > > > > > -- > 致敬 > 向秦贤 >
