On Fre, 2013-07-05 at 17:30 +0200, Antoine Villeret wrote:
>
> I think I will run the server in a separate instance of Pd to avoid
> crash and blocked ports
This is exactly what I meant. Free the server of any other role, just
keep the message relay part and isolate it from the rest of your setu
hi,
thanks for that,
I'm currently testing the Iohannes version that fix the SIGPIPE crash
I realized my patches crash more often since I'm using [tcpserver],
this is why I tested it alone a lot and find some issues i tried to overcome
I think I will run the server in a separate instance of Pd to
On Don, 2013-07-04 at 14:20 +0200, Antoine Villeret wrote:
> ok thanks for the explanation
>
>
> so, for now, there is now way to setup a working [udpserver] in pd
> right ?
> if so, I will stay with [tcpserver] even if I don't need tcp...
I think that is your best bet.
I'm still not quite clea
ok thanks for the explanation
so, for now, there is now way to setup a working [udpserver] in pd right ?
if so, I will stay with [tcpserver] even if I don't need tcp...
but if I could help in debugging [udpserver], I'll be happy to do so, just
let me know what can I do
cheers
a
--
do it yourse
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2013-07-04 13:55, Antoine Villeret wrote:
> 2013/7/3 IOhannes m zmoelnig
>
> On 2013-07-03 17:33, Antoine Villeret wrote:
so it could be difficult to use a server which doesn't accept
more than one connection...
>
> no that's not
2013/7/3 IOhannes m zmoelnig
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2013-07-03 17:33, Antoine Villeret wrote:
> > so it could be difficult to use a server which doesn't accept more
> > than one connection...
> >
>
> no that's not what i meant.
> you can have as many connections
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2013-07-03 17:44, Martin Peach wrote:
> Well [udpreceive] should be able to receive from many different
> senders, no? (It's a bug if not...)
>
> Based on what the [udpreceive] receives, route your replies to one
> or more [udpsend]s based on info
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2013-07-03 17:33, Antoine Villeret wrote:
> so it could be difficult to use a server which doesn't accept more
> than one connection...
>
no that's not what i meant.
you can have as many connections as you want, but they cannot be
maintained at th
Well [udpreceive] should be able to receive from many different senders,
no? (It's a bug if not...)
Based on what the [udpreceive] receives, route your replies to one or
more [udpsend]s based on info in the incoming packets, or set the port
of a single [udpsend] before sending.
UDP is connec
thanks for that,
in fact, some of my clients need the same infos and this is why I first try
to do multicasting
but reaching multiple clients on the same host is different than addressing
one packet to different hosts...
for now all my clients try to connect around each 10 second to server to
que
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2013-07-03 16:12, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> i guess you meant [tcpserver] instead of [udpserver].
>
> in any case, i'm thinking about removing the multi-client feature
> of iemnet's [udpserver]
just to make sure: i did mean [udpserver] (which
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2013-07-03 12:37, Antoine Villeret wrote:
> that's why I switched to [udpserver].
i guess you meant [tcpserver] instead of [udpserver].
in any case, i'm thinking about removing the multi-client feature of
iemnet's [udpserver], so you could only se
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2013-07-03 15:58, Antoine Villeret wrote:
> sorry I was not clear enough
>
> I need a server : listening on one port and sending data to client
> on different port i first use only udpsend/udpreceive and the
> 'server' was sending to a multicast gr
sorry I was not clear enough
I need a server : listening on one port and sending data to client on
different port
i first use only udpsend/udpreceive and the 'server' was sending to a
multicast group, each client join this group and receive all the data
this is not possible with unicast while I ca
On 2013-07-03 06:37, Antoine Villeret wrote:
Hi Martin,
thanks for that,
but I don't know how many clients there are
so it's quite difficult to figure out port number in this case.
My problem is that I can't listen several time on the same port with
[udpreceive] but with multicasting, that's wh
On Wed, 2013-07-03 at 12:56 +0200, Antoine Villeret wrote:
> > then I tried udpserver which doesn't work (at least the
> version in the
> > pd's SVN)
> > then I switch to tcpserver and I got a lots of troubles...
>
>
> Things look good as
yep,
a software shouldn't crash in theory
but in real life, I should take crash into account and find some way to
restart the system in a working state as fast as possible (so that, nobody
suffers from the crash).
another solution is to correct all bugs, but it's too hard for me :-) (and
many are
2013/7/3 Roman Haefeli
> On Die, 2013-07-02 at 20:38 +0200, Antoine Villeret wrote:
> > Hi roman,
> >
> >
> > the code around networking object are some workarounds for differents
> > bugs,
> > the first was a crash when client number reach 32, but it seems to be
> > fixed, I can't reproduce this
Hi Martin,
thanks for that,
but I don't know how many clients there are
so it's quite difficult to figure out port number in this case.
My problem is that I can't listen several time on the same port with
[udpreceive] but with multicasting, that's why I switched to [udpserver].
thanks
a
--
do
On Mit, 2013-07-03 at 00:16 +0200, Roman Haefeli wrote:
> > then I tried udpserver which doesn't work (at least the version in the
> > pd's SVN)
> > then I switch to tcpserver and I got a lots of troubles...
>
> Things look good as long as you think you only need streams. As soon as
> you figure
On Die, 2013-07-02 at 20:38 +0200, Antoine Villeret wrote:
> Hi roman,
>
>
> the code around networking object are some workarounds for differents
> bugs,
> the first was a crash when client number reach 32, but it seems to be
> fixed, I can't reproduce this anymore
> the second was something s
On 2013-07-02 14:38, Antoine Villeret wrote:
all of this is quite complex for a not so difficult task : I want to
make several instance of Pd talking to each other on one machine
I started with udpsend/udpreceive but I found no way to do broadcast on
localhost and I do need to have lots of clien
Hi roman,
the code around networking object are some workarounds for differents bugs,
the first was a crash when client number reach 32, but it seems to be
fixed, I can't reproduce this anymore
the second was something strange if several clients connect to the same
server at the same time (when pa
2013/7/2 IOhannes m zmoelnig
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2013-07-02 13:39, Antoine Villeret wrote:
> >
> > I realize that with iemnet's version of tcpclient/tcpserver, if two
> > client connect at the same time to server, only on receive data
> > not the other,
>
> th
On Die, 2013-07-02 at 13:39 +0200, Antoine Villeret wrote:
> hi again,
>
>
> just saw this thread right after posting
> mine : http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/2013-07/103236.html
>
>
> sorry for bothering
>
>
> here is attached three small patches that make PD crash
> raw_client
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2013-07-02 13:39, Antoine Villeret wrote:
>
> I realize that with iemnet's version of tcpclient/tcpserver, if two
> client connect at the same time to server, only on receive data
> not the other,
that's a different bug, please report it.
(please
hi again,
just saw this thread right after posting mine :
http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/2013-07/103236.html
sorry for bothering
here is attached three small patches that make PD crash
raw_client and raw_server work well together
but when I try to connect more client (eg. 10 with 1
hi all,
I got some crashes with iemnet's tcpserver
gdb tells :
[New Thread 0x7fffb9ffb700 (LWP 7828)]
Program received signal SIGPIPE, Broken pipe.
[Switching to Thread 0x7fffea57a700 (LWP 7713)]
0x773b52cc in __libc_send (fd=, buf=,
n=, flags=)
and it happends when several (10) cli
28 matches
Mail list logo
