I don't think anyone knows why that particular port of memcached has trouble; I'm assuming it's a buggy libevent, or buggy interaction with libevent. Given that it's an unhandled socket error :P
Where did you get the windows binary from? On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Roberto Spadim wrote: > =] can you use 1.2.1 without problems? use it ehheeheh > i don't know if you will get more speed with newer version > if you don't know, please continue trying in this mail list. i can't > help with windows :( > > 2011/2/8 Sean <[email protected]>: > > I am using only one telnet to test the memcache. So only one client > > and 0 keys. On the same machine, if I run memcached.exe version 1.2.1, > > it works fine. > > > > On Feb 8, 2:02 pm, Roberto Spadim <[email protected]> wrote: > >> i don't know, but can memcache use windows pipes? > >> shared memory protocol? > >> for loop back (127.0.0.1) arp table have always 1 register (internal > >> on arp engine, or inside arp table), i think that's not a arp problem > >> too... > >> maybe windows virtual memory problem? > >> what's your today app size? > >> how many clients at same time? > >> how many keys? > >> what's the average key length? > >> > >> 2011/2/8 <[email protected]>: > >> > >> > >> > >> > Comment #9 on issue 122 by [email protected]: failed to write, and not > >> > due blocking: No error > >> >http://code.google.com/p/memcached/issues/detail?id=122 > >> > >> > I don't think it's related to ARP either, since I am using the loopback > >> > interface 127.0.0.1. The arp table is not full. I can stably repro this > >> > issue on a few machines right after I start the memcache.exe. On some > >> > other > >> > machines, it works fine though. I can't figure out the differences > >> > between > >> > these machines. They are of the same Windows version with all last > >> > patches. > >> > >> -- > >> Roberto Spadim > >> Spadim Technology / SPAEmpresarial > > > > -- > Roberto Spadim > Spadim Technology / SPAEmpresarial >
