Hi John,TCP/IP stacks involve reading of headers and fields within protocol header. All of these are implemented as shifts and multiplies. Without hardware support, these operations are implemented in software which tends to slow down the processor. Hence barrel shifts and multiplier hardware is im
But I don't understand why when I close
socket on my windows serwer the lwIP does not notify that. Only when I
close
my serwer the lwIP close too (RST state?).
I'm not sure about this bit. What do you expect lwIP to do when your
server closes the connection? How does lwIP's behaviour diffe
telnet ip 80
GET
here you will get server response
your problem I think is too small stack for your
thread - try to use bigger
best rgs
Janusz
- Original Message -
From:
Guillaume LAGORCE -
RubiSoft
To: lwip-users@nongnu.org
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 6:02
I added
pxSRVconn = netconn_new(NETCONN_TCP); // init conn
if (pxSRVconn != NULL)
if (pxSRVconn->pcb.tcp != NULL)
pxSRVconn->pcb.tcp->so_options |= SO_KEEPALIVE; // turn on
keep-alive
and not keep-alive is working.
How are you testing it?
I have microcontroler Atmel
Hi Sathya,
Thanks for the fast response. I will certainly try all your suggestions before
struggling with RAW_API.
I am really surprised about your item 2. How/where are the barrel shifter and
multiplier used for lwIP.
John.
Quoting Sathya Thammanur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi John,
> As Ed
Hi John,
As Ed mentioned, the following hardware settings would really help in improving the performance:
Cache size on I and D sides - The 66Mhz system on spartan can have upto 8k of I and D cachesEnabling the barrel shifter and multiplier options on MicroBlaze. This is key.
Set the compiler
Hi Ed,
Thanks again. I guess I will have to bite the bullet and start an
implementation of the RAW_API. I really did not think that my really quite
modest requirements would not be met by the sockets version.
John Robbins
Quoting "Pisano, Edward A" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi John,
> In exper
Hi,
I wrote a simple TCP-server
program base on Rowley webserver demo (from FreeRTOS website) using lwip
for ARM7. To test my server, I use Telnet from Windows.
But I have a problem with this part of my
code :
-
portCHAR
Hi,
I wrote a simple TCP-server
program base on Rowley webserver demo (from FreeRTOS website) using lwip
for ARM7. To test my server, I use Telnet from Windows.
But I have a problem with this part of my
code :
-
portCHAR *
On Mon, 2006-09-25 at 16:45 +0200, Janusz U. wrote:
> I added
> pxSRVconn = netconn_new(NETCONN_TCP); // init conn
> if (pxSRVconn != NULL)
>if (pxSRVconn->pcb.tcp != NULL)
> pxSRVconn->pcb.tcp->so_options |= SO_KEEPALIVE; // turn on
> keep-alive
>
> and not keep-alive i
I added
pxSRVconn = netconn_new(NETCONN_TCP); // init conn
if (pxSRVconn != NULL)
if (pxSRVconn->pcb.tcp != NULL)
pxSRVconn->pcb.tcp->so_options |= SO_KEEPALIVE; // turn on
keep-alive
and not keep-alive is working. But I don't understand why when I close
socket on my windo
Hi John,
In experimenting with lwIP on MicroBlaze, I saw some significant
performance improvements when I setup and enabled the data cache and
instruction cache. Also, there are some other architectural things that
can be done such as using the multi-channel memory (mch_opb_ddr) and
placing certain
I use netconn API.
Reduced keep-alive times in tcp.h:
#define TCP_NODELAY0x01/* don't delay send to coalesce packets */
#define TCP_KEEPALIVE 0x02/* send KEEPALIVE probes when idle for
pcb->keepalive miliseconds */
/* Keepalive values */
#define TCP_KEEPDEFAULT 7200/*720*/
On Mon, 2006-09-25 at 14:29 +0200, Janusz U. wrote:
> isn't the TCP keep alive responsible for that? I have similar problem with
> PPP. Link failed in middle of physical connection and lwIP does not detect
> the situation. All other systems have timeouts!
TCP keep-alives are a "MAY" rather than
isn't the TCP keep alive responsible for that? I have similar problem with
PPP. Link failed in middle of physical connection and lwIP does not detect
the situation. All other systems have timeouts!
best rgs
Janusz Uzycki
___
lwip-users mailing list
Clive Wilson wrote:
At 11:24 19/09/2006, you wrote:
On Mon, 2006-09-18 at 13:00 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a problem whereby if the low-level comms supporting a network
> interface I'm using for LwIP suddenly (and unexpectedly) disappears,
> the upper stack layers don't
16 matches
Mail list logo
