Search Results

Search found 3489 results on 140 pages for 'tcp'.

Page 3/140 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • How to make Firefox use TCP for DNS

    - by miniBill
    I want to use TCP for DNS, to bypass my ISP's slow and broken DNS servers. I'm not using (and don't want to use) a proxy. Note: I want to use DNS over TCP because if I use it over udp, no matter what server I set, I get answers from my ISP's DNS. Notice that I will fiercely downvote whoever suggests: programs to do TCP over DNS, the setting in about:config to make DNS go over the proxy too: I'm not using a proxy, use another DNS: I've already set up Google as my DNS, but I get intercepted. Example of what I mean by saying intercept: $ dig @8.8.8.8 thepiratebay.se ; <<>> DiG 9.8.1 <<>> @8.8.8.8 thepiratebay.se ; (1 server found) ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 24385 ;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;thepiratebay.se. IN A ;; ANSWER SECTION: thepiratebay.se. 28800 IN A 83.224.65.41 ;; Query time: 50 msec ;; SERVER: 8.8.8.8#53(8.8.8.8) ;; WHEN: Sun Sep 16 22:51:06 2012 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 49 $ dig +tcp @8.8.8.8 thepiratebay.se ; <<>> DiG 9.8.1 <<>> +tcp @8.8.8.8 thepiratebay.se ; (1 server found) ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 15131 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;thepiratebay.se. IN A ;; ANSWER SECTION: thepiratebay.se. 436 IN A 194.71.107.15 ;; Query time: 61 msec ;; SERVER: 8.8.8.8#53(8.8.8.8) ;; WHEN: Sun Sep 16 22:51:10 2012 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 49 If it matters, I'm using Firefox 14 on Gentoo Linux.

    Read the article

  • Performance Test and TCP tuning

    - by Mithir
    We are in the process of performance testing an application which receives tcp requests converts them to soap requests (WCF-httpBinding) which other services work on. The server is Windows Server 2008 R2. The TCP requests are received by TcpListener instance (.NET C#). There are 3 http-binded WCF services running on the same server. We have built a performance test client which goal is to simulate multiple concurrent requests(each request has to be different and recognizable by the application). We built a test running 150 requests that run on the same time (by 150 different threads), and we noticed straight away that some requests get the TCP connection slowly, but once they get it, they act fast. A single request writes twice on the same connection- request and an application ack. Although a single request+ack can take about 150ms, the 150 test takes about 7 seconds. The Problem When we try to run this test from 2 different computers we lose requests. some clients requests are getting no connection was made because the target machine actively refused it So I got here and got convinced it was because of the backlog. I changed the TcpListener parameters and did the registry AFD backlog changes written here but it still didn't work, so I inserted all of the TCP tuning suggested plus some netsh commands which were recommended, but still no change, we still get that error. Is there anything else I need to know? Are there any other solutions?

    Read the article

  • Windows Server 2008 - unable to bind any TCP port

    - by Kalphiter
    OS: Win Server 2008 RC2 Windows firewall on (no effect when off) I have suddenly been plagued by an issue in which I cannot find any similar ones with a search. I am running about 20 game servers that bind to a UDP port, then bind to a TCP port 1 above the UDP port. Suddenly, a day ago, new TCP binds stopped functioning. Now, I have confirmed that other applications cannot listen on most ports. For example, I have a java program that I made a copy of, and tried the following ports: 33001, 23789, 89... completely random ports. As far as the applications already that have TCP bindings, such as HTTP and MySQL, only port 8080 was one port I discovered could work, and only for Apache. If applications would leave their default port they could not bind, however they returned to normal when the port was default. I've checked for listening applications through netstat and curports, also checked for any connections on these ports, and they're completely free.

    Read the article

  • How to forward UDP and TCP traffic from one IP to another

    - by Rishabh Agnihotri
    Well i have a server with two LAN Card Installed.I have a server in U.S and one in India.I have created a GRE tunnel to route all traffic from U.S Server to my Indian Server.My Traffic has UDP,TCP,HTTP,etc Traffic.Now i have two LAN Card on my Indian Server.Well i have configured two IPs on the system for some of my needs on the system.One is a /30 and another is a /24.Well now i want the /30 IP to talk to my /24 IP.Lets take a e.g the IPs are 180.151.130.34 - /30 and 103.243.19.254 -/24 I want to forward all the TCP,UDP,HTTP,etc like traffic coming to 180.151.130.34 to 103.243.19.254.In the sense i want to make them talk to each other in a way if a TCP/UDP Packet comes to 180.151.130.34 it should be forwarded to 103.243.19.254 and then that packet is sent back by 103.243.19.254 to 180.151.130.34.I am not able to configure this part.Can anyone tell me step by step how to do so? Well i forgot to specify i am using Windows Server 2008. Any help would be greatly appreciated.Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Websocket handshake response not forwarded from TCP to client

    - by Saharsh
    I am trying to create a websocket server. I can see the websocket client's opening handhshake. My response to it is received by the client laptop (I can see this on wireshark). So the TCP connection has been established. But the client (a chrome websocket client extension) does not receive the handshake packet. What could be a possible reason for TCP to not forward the handshake to the client or for the client to not be able to read the TCP message? Client handshake: GET HTTP/1.1 Upgrade: websocket Connection:Upgrade Cache-Control:no-cache Host:192.168.0.101 Origin:http://www.websocket.org Pragma:no-cache Sec-WebSocket-Extensions:permessage-deflate; client_max_window_bits, x-webkit-deflate-frame Sec-WebSocket-Key: qrmw/m+BoZije6h9HYKmVw== Sec-WebSocket-Version:13 Upgrade:websocket Server Response: HTTP/1.1 101 Switching Protocols Upgrade: websocket Connection: Upgrade Sec-WebSocket-Accept: jj1g5Io57m9ks8cme3jkbyo2asc= Access-Control-Allow-Origin: http://www.websocket.org Server: xyz Sec-WebSocket-Extensions: Thanks!

    Read the article

  • TCP Sessions and IP Changes

    - by Kyle Brandt
    What happens to a TCP session when the IP of a client changes? I did a simple test of having netcat listen on a port, and connecting to that port from a client machine. I then changed the IP of the client while that nc session was open and sent some data, no data was received by server after changing the IP. I know they are different layers, but does TCP use IPs for part of how it distinguishes sessions? Does my example not work because of how the application handles it, or is this not working because of something happening at TCP/IP/Ethernet layers? Does this depend on the OS implementation? ( I am most interested in Linux at the moment)

    Read the article

  • centos iptables, restrict tcp port to specific ips

    - by user788171
    I would like to modify the iptables on my CentOS 5.8 server so that only specific ips can connect to the machine on a specific port. Currently, I have the following in my iptables file: -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp --dport 5000 -j ACCEPT How would I modify that line if I wanted to allow access for only ips 1.1.1.1 and 1.1.1.2 for instance? (they might not necessarily be sequential ips when I do this for reals).

    Read the article

  • structure of ethernet frame (tcp/udp) [closed]

    - by rtmrtm2
    How is an ethernet-frame structured. is it: |MAC | |_______________| | |IP | | |___________| | |TCP | | |_______| | |HTTP| |__________|____| or the other way around? so in words: is the mac wrapped around the ip wrapped around the tcp wrapped arround the http? can someone post an image of the specific 'wrapping'? thanks in advance. regards, rtmrtm2

    Read the article

  • TCP Proxy with multiple clients?

    - by Daphna
    I am looking for a TCP proxy - a utility that will connect to a port, read a TCP stream, and write it to clients that connect to it. The key point here is that there may be more than one client, and each client should receive a copy of the stream. Preferably windows solution, but Linux can be useful as well.

    Read the article

  • Change TCP wait for ACK timeouts in Win7/WinServer

    - by maseth
    Is there any possibility to change default wait for ACK timeout in TCP network on Windows 7 or Windows Server ? I'm using very slow network ( 1200 bps ) and want to tweak TCP. When using default parameters network stuck on multiple retransmissions . If I'm able to change the ACK timeout and tx window size I think that it would work. On Windows XP it was possible but cant find any document for Win7 and Win Server.

    Read the article

  • How to measure TCP connection time in Linux

    - by Paul Draper
    I want to measure the overhead in creating a TCP connection. I know of many tools like hping and netperf, but they seem oriented at measuring latency. I want to know how long the 3-way handshake takes, and allocating any buffers, etc., and then closing it. So I want to open a real, legitimate TCP connection, and then close it. Are there any tools that will do that and help me measure performance?

    Read the article

  • Socket options for a tcp server with 3G clients & frequent disconnections

    - by Joel
    I have a TCP server, written in java, sending and receiving many short messages, from 500 bytes to 100 KB long. It's a chess game and chat server, to make it simple. The server is running Debian 6. Half of the clients are connecting from 3G networks, and half over standard DSL. A portion of the 3G clients lose connection pretty often. The error I get on the server and on the client socket is Connection reset. I have come across this page at Oracle documentation: socketOpt. I am wondering what I could tune there to lower the number of disconnections from 3G clients. I don't mind about the ping or transfer rate, but just about the TCP disconnections. I am not skilled enough to understand the impact of each setting, but I sort of understood that the TCP window was important, although I don't know exactly how. So I'm asking if anyone here has an idea ? Thanks if you can help.

    Read the article

  • Puzzling TCP performance over 3G / UMTS

    - by lemonsqueeze
    I'm using 3G as my primary internet connection, and TCP over this thing is getting more puzzling every day. For example: Downloading from kernel.org is crazy fast: $wget http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v3.0/linux-3.6.8.tar.bz2 increases to ~500kB/s after a few secs ! Some servers are incredibly slow, for instance www.graphic-pc.com:Same thing, downloading a big file with wget it starts at ~30kB/s for a split second, then collapses to 5-10k or even worse. Web browsing is decent but somewhat unreliable. Randomly, a page will take really long to load or even fail to load, but a reload can succeed almost immediately. Now, by chance i started playing with OpenVPN over UDP on top of the 3G connection, and OMG suddenly everything's extremely fast !Same www.graphic-pc.com now shoots at 100-200kB/s ! What's going on here ??? How come it is so much better with the VPN than without ?? And why does graphic-pc.com crawl when kernel.org flies ?Something to do with my tcp stack (or the server), or some buggy router in between ?? Notes: Setup is laptop running Ubuntu Lucid and a Huawei 3G dongle (So direct pppd connection). I can reproduce this pretty much any time during the day and I'm not moving, so it's clearly not cell environment or internet congestion. (although kernel.org without VPN sometimes does worse in the evening, 60kB or so - but still 500kB with VPN !) For 2) wireshark shows retransmitted packets, dup ack's, even out of order sometimes. I've tried playing with different /proc/sys/net/ipv4 parameters (tcp_rmem, window_scaling, tcp_congestion...) doesn't seem to make a difference. Update: Tried under windows 7 (no VPN) with some interesting results: tcp settings : default tcp_optimizer kernel.org : 10 kB/s 20 kB/s graphic-pc.com: 8 kB/s 70 kB/s ! tcp_optimizer turned on ctcp among other things. Have to check what os graphic-pc.com is running, my bet is linux's tcp_westwood and ms ctcp don't mix well here...

    Read the article

  • TCP dies on a Linux laptop

    - by Roman Cheplyaka
    Once in several days I have the following problem. My laptop (Debian GNU/Linux testing) suddenly becomes unable to work with TCP connections to the internet. The following things continue to work fine: UDP (DNS), ICMP (ping) — I get instant response TCP connections to other machines in the local network (e.g. I can ssh to a neighbour laptop) everything is ok for other machines in my LAN But when I try TCP connections from my laptop, they time out (no response to SYN packets). Here's a typical curl output: % curl -v google.com * About to connect() to google.com port 80 (#0) * Trying 173.194.39.105... * Connection timed out * Trying 173.194.39.110... * Connection timed out * Trying 173.194.39.97... * Connection timed out * Trying 173.194.39.102... * Timeout * Trying 173.194.39.98... * Timeout * Trying 173.194.39.96... * Timeout * Trying 173.194.39.103... * Timeout * Trying 173.194.39.99... * Timeout * Trying 173.194.39.101... * Timeout * Trying 173.194.39.104... * Timeout * Trying 173.194.39.100... * Timeout * Trying 2a00:1450:400d:803::1009... * Failed to connect to 2a00:1450:400d:803::1009: Network is unreachable * Success * couldn't connect to host * Closing connection #0 curl: (7) Failed to connect to 2a00:1450:400d:803::1009: Network is unreachable Restarting the connection and/or reloading the network card kernel module doesn't help. The only thing that helps is reboot. Clearly something is wrong with my system (everything else works fine), but I have no idea what exactly. I don't know how to reproduce this, but as I said, it happens every several days. My setup is a wireless router that is connected to the ISP via PPPoE. Any advice?

    Read the article

  • Confusion about TCP packet analysis terms

    - by Berkay
    I'm analyzing our network and have some confusion about the terms: this is the 2-packet output from source to destination. from these i have to get some features as describe, pls make me clear... packets with at least a bytes of TCP data payload: it seems tcp.len0; The minimum segment size (confusion is headers are included or or not) The average segment size observed during the lifetime of the connection, the definition: is calculated as the value reported in the actual data bytes divided by the actual data pkts reported. Total bytes in IP packets, should be ip_len value. Total bytes in (Ethernet) The total number of bytes sent probably related to frame.len and frame.cap_len these two terms are describes as, also make me clear about these two terms. frame.cap_len: Frame length stored into the capture file frame.len: Frame length on the wire

    Read the article

  • How can private IPV4 addresses get past iptables NAT (tcp RST,FIN)

    - by gscott
    I've got a router performing simple NAT translation using iptables iptables -t nat -o -j MASQUERADE This works fine almost all of the time except for one particular case where some TCP RST and FIN packets are leaving the router un-NAT'd. In this scenario I setup 1 or 2 client computers streaming Flash video (eg www.nasa.gov/ntv) At the router I then tear down and re-establish the public interface (which is a modem) As expected the Flash streams stall out. After the connection is re-established and I try to refresh the Flash pages, I see some TCP RST and [FIN,ACK] packets leaving the public interface (I assume as Flash attempts to recover its stream). I don't know how these packets can leave the router non-NAT'd

    Read the article

  • terminal tools and logs for debugging TCP issues

    - by kellogs
    I have a server which I am testing for functionality (not load, not stress) with tsung. 50 users / second, 100 total users. Judging from tsung (tsung is the testing framework) graphs, there TCP connections (red line) drops to 0 while the commenced user sessions (green line) does not. Server logs show nothing to be gripping onto, so I am speculating some kind of TCP issue. Should this be the case ? Where would I look further on the server, any logs / tools to be looking at ? Only SSH available, no GUI. > root@XMPP:~# cat /etc/lsb-release > DISTRIB_ID=Ubuntu > DISTRIB_RELEASE=11.10 > DISTRIB_CODENAME=oneiric > DISTRIB_DESCRIPTION="Ubuntu 11.10" Thank you

    Read the article

  • TCP connection stuck in SYN_RECV state despite ACK received, Linux 2.6.18, embedded, ARM

    - by waynix
    My client cannot connect to my protocol port (TCP) after some network glitches, even though all other protocols (telnet/HTTP/FTP) work fine. netstat shows that my server is listening and tcpdump on the server shows all 3 packets are exchanged: 18:29:16.578964 IP 10.9.59.10.3355 10.9.43.131.5084: S 2602965897:2602965897(0) win 65535 <mss 1460,nop,nop,sackOK> 18:29:16.579107 IP 10.9.43.131.5084 10.9.59.10.3355: S 3464857909:3464857909(0) ack 2602965898 win 5840 <mss 1460,nop,nop,sackOK> 18:29:16.579284 IP 10.9.59.10.3355 10.9.43.131.5084: . ack 1 win 65535 But somehow netstat -t shows the connection still in SYN_RECV, as if the ack is not seen by the TCP state machine. I have to restart my server to get it to work. syncookie is not enabled, and I know from client code behavior and tcpdump that there is no SYN flooding. Help much appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Windows Server 2008 constantly spamming external IP's on outbound TCP port 445

    - by RSXAdmin
    Hi Server Fault, I have a Windows Server 2008 box running as a Domain Controller. I have noticed in my Cisco ASA firewall logs that this box is continuously sending out (like a thousand requests a second) requests on TCP port 445 to external hosts. I have made an effort to deny this outbound traffic from getting on the internet (using the ASA), however I would like these requests to stop from even occurring at all. I have tried disabling TCP/IP over NetBIOS. I have even turned on Windows Advanced Firewall on the box itself to block outbound 445 but the ASA still detects this particular traffic hitting it. I have other DC's and similar type boxes which are not behaving the same way as this box. Is this normal? Is there a way to stop this spamming? Have I been infected? Thank you universe.

    Read the article

  • Tcp window size won't go above 130048

    - by Roger
    I have 2 servers set up with about 80ms latency between them. Both are centos 6 and run a java app that transfers data from on location to another. Both are on 1gbps connections. I have been trying different sysctl settings and different send & receive buffer settings in java but no matter what I set them to, I cannot get the tcp window size to go above 130048 in the tcp dumps. This equates to roughly 13mbps which is the actual throughput I am getting.

    Read the article

  • TCP 30 small packets per second flood connection with server

    - by Denis Ermolin
    I'm testing connection with flash client and cloud server(boost::asio for software) over TCP connection. My connection with server already is really poor - 120 ms ping in average. I found when i start to send packets with 2 bytes size (without tcp header) with speed 30 packets/s - ping grow to 170-200 average. I think that it's really bad and my bad connection and bad cloud provider is reason for this high ping without any load. What do you think? (I tested my software - it can compute about 50k small packets/s so software is not a problem). I measure my ping through flash client - send packet with timestamp and immediatly send from server to client.

    Read the article

  • Poor TCP loopback throughput on Windows

    - by Yodan Tauber
    I measured the throughput of a locally bound TCP socket connection on my computer (Intel Q9550, 64 GB RAM, Windows XP 64 bit) using iperf. I got dissatisfying results (around 1.6 Gbit/s) each time, no matter how I tweaked the TCP settings (buffer length, window size, max segment size, no delay). I got similar results when I tried netperf. Now, I understand (from sources like these) that the average throughput of a loopback connection should be around 5 Gbit/s. What could be the reasons for such poor performance?

    Read the article

  • DTracing TCP congestion control

    - by user12820842
    In a previous post, I showed how we can use DTrace to probe TCP receive and send window events. TCP receive and send windows are in effect both about flow-controlling how much data can be received - the receive window reflects how much data the local TCP is prepared to receive, while the send window simply reflects the size of the receive window of the peer TCP. Both then represent flow control as imposed by the receiver. However, consider that without the sender imposing flow control, and a slow link to a peer, TCP will simply fill up it's window with sent segments. Dealing with multiple TCP implementations filling their peer TCP's receive windows in this manner, busy intermediate routers may drop some of these segments, leading to timeout and retransmission, which may again lead to drops. This is termed congestion, and TCP has multiple congestion control strategies. We can see that in this example, we need to have some way of adjusting how much data we send depending on how quickly we receive acknowledgement - if we get ACKs quickly, we can safely send more segments, but if acknowledgements come slowly, we should proceed with more caution. More generally, we need to implement flow control on the send side also. Slow Start and Congestion Avoidance From RFC2581, let's examine the relevant variables: "The congestion window (cwnd) is a sender-side limit on the amount of data the sender can transmit into the network before receiving an acknowledgment (ACK). Another state variable, the slow start threshold (ssthresh), is used to determine whether the slow start or congestion avoidance algorithm is used to control data transmission" Slow start is used to probe the network's ability to handle transmission bursts both when a connection is first created and when retransmission timers fire. The latter case is important, as the fact that we have effectively lost TCP data acts as a motivator for re-probing how much data the network can handle from the sending TCP. The congestion window (cwnd) is initialized to a relatively small value, generally a low multiple of the sending maximum segment size. When slow start kicks in, we will only send that number of bytes before waiting for acknowledgement. When acknowledgements are received, the congestion window is increased in size until cwnd reaches the slow start threshold ssthresh value. For most congestion control algorithms the window increases exponentially under slow start, assuming we receive acknowledgements. We send 1 segment, receive an ACK, increase the cwnd by 1 MSS to 2*MSS, send 2 segments, receive 2 ACKs, increase the cwnd by 2*MSS to 4*MSS, send 4 segments etc. When the congestion window exceeds the slow start threshold, congestion avoidance is used instead of slow start. During congestion avoidance, the congestion window is generally updated by one MSS for each round-trip-time as opposed to each ACK, and so cwnd growth is linear instead of exponential (we may receive multiple ACKs within a single RTT). This continues until congestion is detected. If a retransmit timer fires, congestion is assumed and the ssthresh value is reset. It is reset to a fraction of the number of bytes outstanding (unacknowledged) in the network. At the same time the congestion window is reset to a single max segment size. Thus, we initiate slow start until we start receiving acknowledgements again, at which point we can eventually flip over to congestion avoidance when cwnd ssthresh. Congestion control algorithms differ most in how they handle the other indication of congestion - duplicate ACKs. A duplicate ACK is a strong indication that data has been lost, since they often come from a receiver explicitly asking for a retransmission. In some cases, a duplicate ACK may be generated at the receiver as a result of packets arriving out-of-order, so it is sensible to wait for multiple duplicate ACKs before assuming packet loss rather than out-of-order delivery. This is termed fast retransmit (i.e. retransmit without waiting for the retransmission timer to expire). Note that on Oracle Solaris 11, the congestion control method used can be customized. See here for more details. In general, 3 or more duplicate ACKs indicate packet loss and should trigger fast retransmit . It's best not to revert to slow start in this case, as the fact that the receiver knew it was missing data suggests it has received data with a higher sequence number, so we know traffic is still flowing. Falling back to slow start would be excessive therefore, so fast recovery is used instead. Observing slow start and congestion avoidance The following script counts TCP segments sent when under slow start (cwnd ssthresh). #!/usr/sbin/dtrace -s #pragma D option quiet tcp:::connect-request / start[args[1]-cs_cid] == 0/ { start[args[1]-cs_cid] = 1; } tcp:::send / start[args[1]-cs_cid] == 1 && args[3]-tcps_cwnd tcps_cwnd_ssthresh / { @c["Slow start", args[2]-ip_daddr, args[4]-tcp_dport] = count(); } tcp:::send / start[args[1]-cs_cid] == 1 && args[3]-tcps_cwnd args[3]-tcps_cwnd_ssthresh / { @c["Congestion avoidance", args[2]-ip_daddr, args[4]-tcp_dport] = count(); } As we can see the script only works on connections initiated since it is started (using the start[] associative array with the connection ID as index to set whether it's a new connection (start[cid] = 1). From there we simply differentiate send events where cwnd ssthresh (congestion avoidance). Here's the output taken when I accessed a YouTube video (where rport is 80) and from an FTP session where I put a large file onto a remote system. # dtrace -s tcp_slow_start.d ^C ALGORITHM RADDR RPORT #SEG Slow start 10.153.125.222 20 6 Slow start 138.3.237.7 80 14 Slow start 10.153.125.222 21 18 Congestion avoidance 10.153.125.222 20 1164 We see that in the case of the YouTube video, slow start was exclusively used. Most of the segments we sent in that case were likely ACKs. Compare this case - where 14 segments were sent using slow start - to the FTP case, where only 6 segments were sent before we switched to congestion avoidance for 1164 segments. In the case of the FTP session, the FTP data on port 20 was predominantly sent with congestion avoidance in operation, while the FTP session relied exclusively on slow start. For the default congestion control algorithm - "newreno" - on Solaris 11, slow start will increase the cwnd by 1 MSS for every acknowledgement received, and by 1 MSS for each RTT in congestion avoidance mode. Different pluggable congestion control algorithms operate slightly differently. For example "highspeed" will update the slow start cwnd by the number of bytes ACKed rather than the MSS. And to finish, here's a neat oneliner to visually display the distribution of congestion window values for all TCP connections to a given remote port using a quantization. In this example, only port 80 is in use and we see the majority of cwnd values for that port are in the 4096-8191 range. # dtrace -n 'tcp:::send { @q[args[4]-tcp_dport] = quantize(args[3]-tcps_cwnd); }' dtrace: description 'tcp:::send ' matched 10 probes ^C 80 value ------------- Distribution ------------- count -1 | 0 0 |@@@@@@ 5 1 | 0 2 | 0 4 | 0 8 | 0 16 | 0 32 | 0 64 | 0 128 | 0 256 | 0 512 | 0 1024 | 0 2048 |@@@@@@@@@ 8 4096 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ 23 8192 | 0

    Read the article

  • TCP and UDP are using different OS Buffer?

    - by Jack
    HI all. Here is the scenario. I have port 8888 for my program to use. I build a TCP and a UDP listener on that port. (This can do, c# allows, because they are two different protocols) My question is If the network traffic is very busy, TCP sockets may refuse or signalling the other end to stop sending things, it is called congestion control, right? So if TCP is congestion controlling, other ends may not send more data, in this "TCP quiet period", UDP channel should have not that much of traffic, right? I want to figure out the TCP traffic will affect UDP traffic or not?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >