On Wed, 2009-03-04 at 08:08 +0900, PSPunch wrote: > The earlier sounds like to introduce massive overhead caused by TCP > headers, especially when we are speak of sending amounts of data that > may flood the socket's "send buffer." In the later case, the OS may > indicate that bytes entered the socket, while they were actually only > buffered while the connection breaks and was never sent. >
if i interprete my observations correctly, this is not a big deal, since not every message sent to [tcpserver] will be transmitted in its own tcp frame. at least on my box (ubuntu 8.04), they are sent seperately, if there is at least a time interval of ~10ms between them. messages sent with shorter intervals are concatenated into one frame. said this, i have to add, that the above is only true, if the number of elements of a lists on the receiving side represent the framesize. for instance, when i plug out the ethernet cable and fill the buffer on the sender side, then plug the cable back in, i get one big list with ~5000 elements on the receiving side (don't try to print that one, it will hang pd) roman ___________________________________________________________ Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de
_______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list