On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 5:51 PM, John Cowan <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Robert Fischer <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Wait—let me get this straight. Even if you close a socket, you've > > still consumed a port number, and there's no way to free the port > > numbers for re-use? > > No, not at all. If the socket has been closed long enough, the kernel > will free the port number, and it can be reallocated. I was simply > speculating that the OP was opening ports faster than he was closing > them, but apparently not. > I'm looking into this. It's possible, even probable, that my "rate of socket opening" does increase shortly before I hit the problem. It's not wrapping the port numbers that are the problem, it's wrapping them too fast. This is especially relevant because it looks like the problem goes away after a second or two. So this is making sense. Thanks. Brian -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JVM Languages" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jvm-languages?hl=en.
