Hi,
I wanted to know if MINA supports binding to multiple IP interfaces? So if
my machine has 2 IP addresses (A and B) - can I make a single MINA process
bind to both? It seems to me it should be possible by just creating a
second NioSocketAcceptor object, binding it to the second local IP address
That's more a java/socket problem.
You should use 0.0.0.0 as the binding address
Jeff
—
Sent from Mailbox for iPhone
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 4:50 AM, Dhruv Chopra
wrote:
> Hi,
> I wanted to know if MINA supports binding to multiple IP interfaces? So if
> my machine has 2 IP addresses (A and
Le 11/28/13 4:50 AM, Dhruv Chopra a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I wanted to know if MINA supports binding to multiple IP interfaces? So if
> my machine has 2 IP addresses (A and B) - can I make a single MINA process
> bind to both? It seems to me it should be possible by just creating a
> second NioSocketAcc
I understand how it will work with acceptors and binding to different
interface - I would like to know if someone has done it with MINA before
and could share their experience. To handle more than 65k+ concurrent tcp
clients (16 bit port range) - I will need such a setup. If there are any
bench mar
Le 11/28/13 2:51 PM, Dhruv Chopra a écrit :
> I understand how it will work with acceptors and binding to different
> interface - I would like to know if someone has done it with MINA before
> and could share their experience. To handle more than 65k+ concurrent tcp
> clients (16 bit port range) -
> Emmanuel Lécharny [mailto:elecha...@gmail.com] wrote
>
> Le 11/28/13 2:51 PM, Dhruv Chopra a écrit :
> > I understand how it will work with acceptors and binding to different
> > interface - I would like to know if someone has done it with MINA
> > before and could share their experience. To hand
Thanks! that clarifies things.. I guess I would run in to this 64k limit
only when in my tests I run the clients and the MINA server on the same
machine.
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Steve Ulrich wrote:
> > Emmanuel Lécharny [mailto:elecha...@gmail.com] wrote
> >
> > Le 11/28/13 2:51 PM, Dhr
> dhruv.cho...@shephertz.co.in wrote
>
> Thanks! that clarifies things.. I guess I would run in to this 64k
> limit only when in my tests I run the clients and the MINA server on
> the same machine.
There may be a catch if your clients are mobiles or within another NAT-ed
network. Most mobile pro
I see - yes that can happen with mobile providers or with ISPs who do
NAT444.
Didn't understand this part in your reply
"So a small port range may be a good idea if you are planning to have a
huge amout of connections."
Are you referring to the local ephemeral port range on the server machine?
On
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Dhruv Chopra wrote:
> Thanks! that clarifies things.. I guess I would run in to this 64k limit
> only when in my tests I run the clients and the MINA server on the same
> machine.
>
Not neccessarily. You could set up more than one loopback device (often at
IP 127.
10 matches
Mail list logo