Search Results

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

Page 6/140 | < Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >

  • Memory Pressure Protection Feature for TCP Stack - Provided by Microsoft Security Update KB967723

    - by Angry_IT_Guru
    We've been having a lot of funky issues with some of our web based applications that allow clients to submit lot of image files to our servers. Lots of ports are used in the process. http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS09-048.mspx - released in Sept-2009. support.microsoft.com/kb/974288 - Memory Pressure Protection description. Evidently, after applying KB967723, our clients receive funky error messages as if connections cannot be made to the server or connections have been closed. There doesn't appear to be a pattern and sometimes it works and other times is doesn't. Typically we've noticed it when server is under load. I'm curious what others think about this MPP and any issues that you may have experienced from it. I understand its purpose, but I think it may have broken a lot of apps in the process. It doesn't look like Microsoft made this "feature" public to everyone.

    Read the article

  • Lingering tcp connection in LISTEN state

    - by Silvio Donnini
    My java application can sometimes be killed by an external script. This can be done either with SIGTERM or with SIGKILL. The application is a server which receives many connections per second, and it can be killed while trying to serve them. I would like to restart the application whenever it's killed, so I have prepared a script for that purpose. The problem is that, once the app has been killed, the new application instance can't bind to the port used by the previous instance, because the "Address is already in use". The previous instance's process has been definitely terminated, anyway the offending listening port is still there, but it is assigned to bash (or sh on other machines). Obviouly, my goal is to restart the application and let it bind successfully to the previous address. I've tried waiting more than 200 seconds before restarting to no avail, anyway I can't afford to wait that much. I've encountered this problem on all the machines I've ran the application (which is a jetty server with java 1.6). Any suggestion is appreciated, thanks, Silvio

    Read the article

  • Allow X Client Display through TCP on Lucid

    - by user42336
    On Karmic, to allow other PCs to open and X-Window on a station, one had to edit /etc/gdm.conf and change DisallowTCP to false. That file no longer exists on Lucid. I tried changing an entry in /etc/gdm/gdm.schemas (XML format) but that did not make a difference. Any ideas on where to go for this?

    Read the article

  • Small TCP Window on WAN between 2 Locations

    - by Brent
    Site A: Denver datacenter. 60MBPS. Site B: Chicago. 100MBPS. ICMP pings: Packets: Sent = 176, Received = 176, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 74ms, Maximum = 94ms, Average = 75ms File transfer between sites that never goes past ~7MBPS: Windows Update download at 60MBPS+: Site to site: IPSec VPN using two Cisco 5520's. CPU at 3-4% and lots of memory to spare. The latency between to two sites is very acceptable so I can't see an issue why it is performing so slow when transferring between the two sites. I have found that any type of transfer (FTP, HTTP, Windows file shares) will never go above ~7MBPS. When the WAN was first setup, I was able to get transfers at 50-60MBPS, which is what is expected due to the WAN connection at the Site A at 60MBPS. Then a few days later, I was not able to get anything going faster than ~7MBPS. Is there a upstream router between Denver and Chicago causing this? I want to take the blame away from our setup as downloads from Windows Update go blazing fast and for the first few days after the site to site VPN came up, I was transferring VM images at 50-60MBPS. Our stack: HP P2000 MSA - HP C7000 Chassis - HP Flex-10 - Cisco Gigabit switch - Cisco ASA - WAN

    Read the article

  • TCP connection between PCs in home wi-fi network

    - by Nordvind
    I want to establish a connection between 2 PCs. Point is to practice in writing client-server applications and similar stuff. I've heard around, that I can access another PC in network by address like "Router IP:port number". Am I right or i got it wrong? So how do I configure router to let connections to certain ports? And what would address look like, if I'm, say, connecting to 80 port on my home server? P.S. Will be grateful for links to some tutorials on this matter, if any.

    Read the article

  • TCP 3 way handshake

    - by Tom
    Hi, i'm just observing what NMAP is doing for the 3 ports it reports are open. I understand what a half-scan attack is, but what's happening doesnt make sense. NMAP is reporting ports 139 are 445 are open..... all fine. But when i look at the control bits, NMAP never sends RST once it has found out the port is open, It does this for port 135- but not 139 and 445. This is what happens: (I HAVE OMITTED THE victim's replies) Sends a 2 (SYN) Sends a 16 (ACK) Sends a 24 (ACK + PST) Sends a 16 (ACK) Sends a 17 (ACK + FIN) I dont get why NMAP doesnt 'RST' ports 139 and 445??

    Read the article

  • Voice Communication over TCP/IP

    - by Micha
    Hello, I'm currently developing application using DirectSound for communication on an intranet. I've had working solution using UDP but then my boss told me he wants to use TCP/IP for some reason. I've tried to implement it in pretty much the same way as UDP, but with very little success. What I get is basically just noise. 20% of it is the recorded sound and the rest is just weird noise. My guess for the reason is that TCP needs to read all the accepted data several times until it gets the final sound I can play. Now two questions: Am I on the right tracks? Is it even good idea to use TCP/IP for this kind of application (voice conferencing of sorts)? I'm doing it in C# but I don't think this is language specific.

    Read the article

  • How to call a Biztalk net.TCP service from Raw TCP request?

    - by Burhan
    I have written a net.tcp based service in Biztalk 2006 R2 and it listens at a location, http://localhost:5060/WCFTcpService I need to call this service by using Raw TCP request. i.e. I don't want to create a proxy class and consume it in a .NET client application. How can I be able to do this? The real scenario is that an Oracle Stored procedure will be used to communicate with this service and the only way I am allowed to call this service is to send a TCP request to the Biztalk server that is hosting the service. Any help or tips would be really appreciated. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • data path (travel) of tcp data from "write" syscall downto I/O registers programming

    - by osgx
    Hello Is there a good overview of tcp data path in Linux (2.6, not 2.4 if the path actually differ)? Where is a packet on different stages of tcp/ip stack handling? How packet is packed to tcp segment, then ip packet. How it is transmitted to network card? (with series of I/O regs write and DMA?) Is it transmitted to network card in the "write" syscall handler (with some deep callstack) or is it transmitted at some other moment?

    Read the article

  • TCP/IP and UDP Questions and very small application for interview

    - by Shantanu Gupta
    I am going for an interview day after tomorrow where i will be asked vaious questions related to TCP/IP and UDP. As of now i have prepared theoritical knowledge about it. But now I am looking up for gaining some practicle knowledge related to how it works in a network. What all is going in vaious .NET classes. I want to create a very small application like a chat or something that can make me all these concepts very much clear. Could you please suggest some questions related to TCP/IP that you generally ask or that you might have faced. How communication is going from server to client. Right now I am studying TcpClient, TcpListener and UdpClient Class but I want to implement all of them so as to get aware about its working. Is Chat application a Tcp/IP application ? I would appreciate your help.

    Read the article

  • Odd tcp deadlock under windows

    - by John Robertson
    We are moving large amounts of data on a LAN and it has to happen very rapidly and reliably. Currently we use windows TCP as implemented in C++. Using large (synchronous) sends moves the data much faster than a bunch of smaller (synchronous) sends but will frequently deadlock for large gaps of time (.15 seconds) causing the overall transfer rate to plummet. This deadlock happens in very particular circumstances which makes me believe it should be preventable altogether. More importantly if we don't really know the cause we don't really know it won't happen some time with smaller sends anyway. Can anyone explain this deadlock? Deadlock description (OK, zombie-locked, it isn't dead, but for .15 or so seconds it stops, then starts again) The receiving side sends an ACK. The sending side sends a packet containing the end of a message (push flag is set) The call to socket.recv takes about .15 seconds(!) to return About the time the call returns an ACK is sent by the receiving side The the next packet from the sender is finally sent (why is it waiting? the tcp window is plenty big) The odd thing about (3) is that typically that call doesn't take much time at all and receives exactly the same amount of data. On a 2Ghz machine that's 300 million instructions worth of time. I am assuming the call doesn't (heaven forbid) wait for the received data to be acked before it returns, so the ack must be waiting for the call to return, or both must be delayed by something else. The problem NEVER happens when there is a second packet of data (part of the same message) arriving between 1 and 2. That part very clearly makes it sound like it has to do with the fact that windows TCP will not send back a no-data ACK until either a second packet arrives or a 200ms timer expires. However the delay is less than 200 ms (its more like 150 ms). The third unseemly character (and to my mind the real culprit) is (5). Send is definitely being called well before that .15 seconds is up, but the data NEVER hits the wire before that ack returns. That is the most bizarre part of this deadlock to me. Its not a tcp blockage because the TCP window is plenty big since we set SO_RCVBUF to something like 500*1460 (which is still under a meg). The data is coming in very fast (basically there is a loop spinning out data via send) so the buffer should fill almost immediately. According to msdn the buffer being full and at least one pending send should cause the data to be sent (though in another place it mentions that there various "heuristics" used in deciding when a send hits the wire). Anway, why the sender doesn't actually send more data during that .15 second pause is the most bizarre part to me. The information above was captured on the receiving side via wireshark (except of course the socket.recv return times which were logged in a text file). We tried changing the send buffer to zero and turning off Nagle on the sender (yes, I know Nagle is about not sending small packets - but we tried turning Nagle off in case that was part of the unstated "heuristics" affecting whether the message would be posted to the wire. Technically microsoft's Nagle is that a small packet isn't sent if the buffer is full and there is an outstanding ACK, so it seemed like a possibility).

    Read the article

  • Listening for TCP and UDP requests on the same port

    - by user339328
    I am writing a Client/Server set of programs Depending on the operation requested by the client, I use make TCP or UDP request. Implementing the client side is straight-forward, since I can easily open connection with any protocol and send the request to the server-side. On the servers-side, on the other hand, I would like to listen both for UDP and TCP connections on the same port. Moreover, I like the the server to open new thread for each connection request. I have adopted the approach explained in: link text I have extended this code sample by creating new threads for each TCP/UDP request. This works correctly if I use TCP only, but it fails when I attempt to make UDP bindings. Please give me any suggestion how can I correct this. tnx Here is the Server Code: public class Server { public static void main(String args[]) { try { int port = 4444; if (args.length > 0) port = Integer.parseInt(args[0]); SocketAddress localport = new InetSocketAddress(port); // Create and bind a tcp channel to listen for connections on. ServerSocketChannel tcpserver = ServerSocketChannel.open(); tcpserver.socket().bind(localport); // Also create and bind a DatagramChannel to listen on. DatagramChannel udpserver = DatagramChannel.open(); udpserver.socket().bind(localport); // Specify non-blocking mode for both channels, since our // Selector object will be doing the blocking for us. tcpserver.configureBlocking(false); udpserver.configureBlocking(false); // The Selector object is what allows us to block while waiting // for activity on either of the two channels. Selector selector = Selector.open(); tcpserver.register(selector, SelectionKey.OP_ACCEPT); udpserver.register(selector, SelectionKey.OP_READ); System.out.println("Server Sterted on port: " + port + "!"); //Load Map Utils.LoadMap("mapa"); System.out.println("Server map ... LOADED!"); // Now loop forever, processing client connections while(true) { try { selector.select(); Set<SelectionKey> keys = selector.selectedKeys(); // Iterate through the Set of keys. for (Iterator<SelectionKey> i = keys.iterator(); i.hasNext();) { SelectionKey key = i.next(); i.remove(); Channel c = key.channel(); if (key.isAcceptable() && c == tcpserver) { new TCPThread(tcpserver.accept().socket()).start(); } else if (key.isReadable() && c == udpserver) { new UDPThread(udpserver.socket()).start(); } } } catch (Exception e) { e.printStackTrace(); } } } catch (Exception e) { e.printStackTrace(); System.err.println(e); System.exit(1); } } } The UDPThread code: public class UDPThread extends Thread { private DatagramSocket socket = null; public UDPThread(DatagramSocket socket) { super("UDPThread"); this.socket = socket; } @Override public void run() { byte[] buffer = new byte[2048]; try { DatagramPacket packet = new DatagramPacket(buffer, buffer.length); socket.receive(packet); String inputLine = new String(buffer); String outputLine = Utils.processCommand(inputLine.trim()); DatagramPacket reply = new DatagramPacket(outputLine.getBytes(), outputLine.getBytes().length, packet.getAddress(), packet.getPort()); socket.send(reply); } catch (IOException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } socket.close(); } } I receive: Exception in thread "UDPThread" java.nio.channels.IllegalBlockingModeException at sun.nio.ch.DatagramSocketAdaptor.receive(Unknown Source) at server.UDPThread.run(UDPThread.java:25) 10x

    Read the article

  • Observing flow control idle time in TCP

    - by user12820842
    Previously I described how to observe congestion control strategies during transmission, and here I talked about TCP's sliding window approach for handling flow control on the receive side. A neat trick would now be to put the pieces together and ask the following question - how often is TCP transmission blocked by congestion control (send-side flow control) versus a zero-sized send window (which is the receiver saying it cannot process any more data)? So in effect we are asking whether the size of the receive window of the peer or the congestion control strategy may be sub-optimal. The result of such a problem would be that we have TCP data that we could be transmitting but we are not, potentially effecting throughput. So flow control is in effect: when the congestion window is less than or equal to the amount of bytes outstanding on the connection. We can derive this from args[3]-tcps_snxt - args[3]-tcps_suna, i.e. the difference between the next sequence number to send and the lowest unacknowledged sequence number; and when the window in the TCP segment received is advertised as 0 We time from these events until we send new data (i.e. args[4]-tcp_seq = snxt value when window closes. Here's the script: #!/usr/sbin/dtrace -s #pragma D option quiet tcp:::send / (args[3]-tcps_snxt - args[3]-tcps_suna) = args[3]-tcps_cwnd / { cwndclosed[args[1]-cs_cid] = timestamp; cwndsnxt[args[1]-cs_cid] = args[3]-tcps_snxt; @numclosed["cwnd", args[2]-ip_daddr, args[4]-tcp_dport] = count(); } tcp:::send / cwndclosed[args[1]-cs_cid] && args[4]-tcp_seq = cwndsnxt[args[1]-cs_cid] / { @meantimeclosed["cwnd", args[2]-ip_daddr, args[4]-tcp_dport] = avg(timestamp - cwndclosed[args[1]-cs_cid]); @stddevtimeclosed["cwnd", args[2]-ip_daddr, args[4]-tcp_dport] = stddev(timestamp - cwndclosed[args[1]-cs_cid]); @numclosed["cwnd", args[2]-ip_daddr, args[4]-tcp_dport] = count(); cwndclosed[args[1]-cs_cid] = 0; cwndsnxt[args[1]-cs_cid] = 0; } tcp:::receive / args[4]-tcp_window == 0 && (args[4]-tcp_flags & (TH_SYN|TH_RST|TH_FIN)) == 0 / { swndclosed[args[1]-cs_cid] = timestamp; swndsnxt[args[1]-cs_cid] = args[3]-tcps_snxt; @numclosed["swnd", args[2]-ip_saddr, args[4]-tcp_dport] = count(); } tcp:::send / swndclosed[args[1]-cs_cid] && args[4]-tcp_seq = swndsnxt[args[1]-cs_cid] / { @meantimeclosed["swnd", args[2]-ip_daddr, args[4]-tcp_sport] = avg(timestamp - swndclosed[args[1]-cs_cid]); @stddevtimeclosed["swnd", args[2]-ip_daddr, args[4]-tcp_sport] = stddev(timestamp - swndclosed[args[1]-cs_cid]); swndclosed[args[1]-cs_cid] = 0; swndsnxt[args[1]-cs_cid] = 0; } END { printf("%-6s %-20s %-8s %-25s %-8s %-8s\n", "Window", "Remote host", "Port", "TCP Avg WndClosed(ns)", "StdDev", "Num"); printa("%-6s %-20s %-8d %@-25d %@-8d %@-8d\n", @meantimeclosed, @stddevtimeclosed, @numclosed); } So this script will show us whether the peer's receive window size is preventing flow ("swnd" events) or whether congestion control is limiting flow ("cwnd" events). As an example I traced on a server with a large file transfer in progress via a webserver and with an active ssh connection running "find / -depth -print". Here is the output: ^C Window Remote host Port TCP Avg WndClosed(ns) StdDev Num cwnd 10.175.96.92 80 86064329 77311705 125 cwnd 10.175.96.92 22 122068522 151039669 81 So we see in this case, the congestion window closes 125 times for port 80 connections and 81 times for ssh. The average time the window is closed is 0.086sec for port 80 and 0.12sec for port 22. So if you wish to change congestion control algorithm in Oracle Solaris 11, a useful step may be to see if congestion really is an issue on your network. Scripts like the one posted above can help assess this, but it's worth reiterating that if congestion control is occuring, that's not necessarily a problem that needs fixing. Recall that congestion control is about controlling flow to prevent large-scale drops, so looking at congestion events in isolation doesn't tell us the whole story. For example, are we seeing more congestion events with one control algorithm, but more drops/retransmission with another? As always, it's best to start with measures of throughput and latency before arriving at a specific hypothesis such as "my congestion control algorithm is sub-optimal".

    Read the article

  • How can i monitor syslog messages in c# console app with TCP

    - by djerry
    Heya, In my application, i need to monitor all messages sent by syslog. I've tried with UDP, but after one message, i didn't respond anymore (no error, just no heads up anymore). And setting up a tcp server isn't really the solution either i think. Can anyone guide me to a solution where i can log messages form syslog with tcp (normally on port 514). Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • I want to establish a TCP/IP connection over a UART connection (Windows XP/7)

    - by michael
    I want to connect two computer via serial but for each to see each other via a TCP/IP connection. Ie, create new ethernet ports on the computers that are in actual fact serial ports. The reason for this is that I am actually testing the medium in which the serial connection is made (wireless), and part of the experiment will be to use TCP/IP. Preferably I would use something that I can configure (max packet size and setting serial delimiters).

    Read the article

  • how to send data to server with the same TCP connection using ajax or JS trick

    - by zack
    Hi, I know how to keep a connection indifinetely open server side to stream continuously data to javascript. BUT I do not know how to send data reusing the same TCP from browser to server. so there is not the 3 way handshake and only 2 tcp packets. I know it is possible but I do not how to do it : use xmlhttprequest? or script tag ajax ? can you tell me how to do it. thank you very much

    Read the article

  • fast opening and closing connection with a specific port

    - by michale
    We have a Main application named "Trevor" installed in 2008R2 machine named "TEAMER12" which is slow now. One more application named "TVS" also running in and found there were many connections per second occurring to port 5009. netstat tool mentions that some fast connection open/close seen for port 5009 So first it will be listening mode like shown below TCP 0.0.0.0:5009 TEAMER12:0 LISTENING then establishes connection like TCP 127.0.0.1:5009 TEAMER12:49519 ESTABLISHED TCP 127.0.0.1:5009 TEAMER12:60903 ESTABLISHED After that iwill become TIME_WAIT and i could see several entries like shown below TCP 127.0.0.1:49156 TEAMER12:5009 TIME_WAIT after that it will establish connection like TCP 127.0.0.1:60903 TEAMER12:5009 ESTABLISHED TCP 127.0.0.1:64181 TEAMER12:microsoft-ds ESTABLISHED again it will go several entries like TIME_WAIT TCP 127.0.0.1:49156 TEAMER12:5009 TIME_WAIT Finally it will establish like this TCP 172.26.127.40:139 TEAMER12:0 LISTENING TCP 172.26.127.42:139 TEAMER12:0 LISTENING TCP 172.26.127.42:5009 TEAMER12:64445 ESTABLISHED TCP 172.26.127.42:64445 TEAMER12:5009 ESTABLISHED Can any body tell me whats the reason behind why many connections per second occurring to port 5009 and why application slow?

    Read the article

  • opening and closing connection with port happening fastly

    - by michale
    We have a Main application named "Trevor" installed in 2008R2 machine named "TEAMER12" which is slow now. One more application named "TVS" also running in and found there were many connections per second occurring to port 5009. netstat tool mentions that some fast connection open/close seen for port 5009 So first it will be listening mode like shown below TCP 0.0.0.0:5009 TEAMER12:0 LISTENING then establishes connection like TCP 127.0.0.1:5009 TEAMER12:49519 ESTABLISHED TCP 127.0.0.1:5009 TEAMER12:60903 ESTABLISHED After that iwill become TIME_WAIT and i could see several entries like shown below TCP 127.0.0.1:49156 TEAMER12:5009 TIME_WAIT after that it will establish connection like TCP 127.0.0.1:60903 TEAMER12:5009 ESTABLISHED TCP 127.0.0.1:64181 TEAMER12:microsoft-ds ESTABLISHED again it will go several entries like TIME_WAIT TCP 127.0.0.1:49156 TEAMER12:5009 TIME_WAIT Finally it will establish like this TCP 172.26.127.40:139 TEAMER12:0 LISTENING TCP 172.26.127.42:139 TEAMER12:0 LISTENING TCP 172.26.127.42:5009 TEAMER12:64445 ESTABLISHED TCP 172.26.127.42:64445 TEAMER12:5009 ESTABLISHED Can any body tell me whats the reason behind why many connections per second occurring to port 5009 and why application slow?

    Read the article

  • C# Windows Mobile 6.5 and TCP connections

    - by Phillip
    Hello, I am developing an application which makes a TCP connection out to our company server to pull down data and provide real-time data updates when the information changes. I am using the .NET Compact Framework for the development and the .NET Framework 3.5 (soon to update to 4.0) for the server-side TCP connection. I want to leave the connection open after the initial data is sent to the device from the server in order to keep the server in contact with the device should data updates need to be sent to the device. We already considered doing a WCF or connect/disconnect type of connection but we believe the overhead on the server for creating the session, transmitting and session cleanup would be unacceptable. (each device would be connecting every 60-90 seconds.) So, leaving the connection open is the best option. What I need to know is, when I leave the TCP connection open, do I need to manually transmit a heartbeat (and if so how do I do that with the .NET Compact Framework) or will the framework/stack do that for me? We have code that allows up to reconnect if the device gets disconnected (from network switching or a voice call) so that is handled. Thanks,

    Read the article

  • Long-held TCP sessions in an ASMX client

    - by John
    Hi, I have an ASP.NET application which talks to a third-party SOAP web service. My application uses an ASMX client proxy (i.e. System.Web.Services.Protocols.SoapHttpClientProtocol). The third-party service uses WCF, although I don't expect that makes much difference. I should note that we're using .NET 3.5 SP1. We haven't customised the proxy or done anything unusual - we're just making standard web service requests and getting back the results. We have encapsulated the proxy reference within a using block so it will get disposed after the response is received. We've been told that our application is behaving strangely in its use of TCP sessions. Instead of opening a new TCP session for each request from a new proxy instance (which is what I would have expected it to do), it's apparently keeping several connections alive and re-using them. This is causing some issues at the third party end, as they are expecting us to be using multiple sessions. Is this a known behaviour for the SoapHttpClientProtocol client proxy? If so, is there any way we can override it so that each request results in a new TCP session? Thanks, John

    Read the article

  • Detect TCP connection close when playing Flash video

    - by JoJo
    On the Flash client side, how do I detect when the server purposely closes the TCP connection to its video stream? I'll need to take action when this occurs - maybe attempt to restart the video or display an error message. Currently, the connection closing and the connection being slow look the same to me. The NetStream object ushers a NetStream.Play.Stop event in both cases. When the connection is slow, it usually recovers by itself within seconds. I wish to only take action when the connection is closed, not when it is slow. Here's how my general setup looks like. It's the basic NetConnection-NetStream-Video setup. this.vidConnection = new NetConnection(); this.vidConnection.addEventListener(AsyncErrorEvent.ASYNC_ERROR, this.connectionAsyncError); this.vidConnection.addEventListener(IOErrorEvent.IO_ERROR, this.connectionIoError); this.vidConnection.addEventListener(NetStatusEvent.NET_STATUS, this.connectionNetStatus); this.vidConnection.connect(null); this.vidStream = new NetStream(this.vidConnection); this.vidStream.addEventListener(AsyncErrorEvent.ASYNC_ERROR, this.streamAsyncError); this.vidStream.addEventListener(IOErrorEvent.IO_ERROR, this.streamIoError); this.vidStream.addEventListener(NetStatusEvent.NET_STATUS, this.streamNetStatus); this.vid.attachNetStream(this.vidStream); None of the error events fire when the server closes the TCP or when the connection freezes up. Only the NetStream.Play.Stop event fires. Here's a trace of what happens from initially playing the video to the TCP connection closing. connection net status = NetConnection.Connect.Success playStream(http://192.168.0.44/flv/4d29104a9aefa) NetStream.Play.Start NetStream.Buffer.Flush NetStream.Buffer.Full NetStream.Buffer.Empty checkDimensions 0 0 onMetaData NetStream.Buffer.Full NetStream.Buffer.Flush checkDimensions 960 544 NetStream.Buffer.Empty NetStream.Buffer.Flush NetStream.Play.Stop

    Read the article

  • Detecting TCP dropout over an unreliable network

    - by yx
    I am doing some experimentation over an unreliable radio network (home brewed) using very rudimentary java socket programming to transfer messages back and forth between the end nodes. The setup is as follows: Node A --- Relay Node --- Node B One problem I am constantly running into is that somehow the connection drops out and neither Node A or B knows that the link is dead, and yet continues to transmit data. The TCP connection does not time out either. I have added in a heartbeat message that causes a timeout after a while, but I still would like to know what is the underlying cause of why TCP does not time out. Here are the options I am enabling when setting up a socket: channel.socket().setKeepAlive(false); channel.socket().setTrafficClass(0x08); // for max throughput This behavior is strange since it is totally different than when I have a wired network. On a wired network, I can simulate a disconnected connection by pulling out the ethernet cord, however, once I plug the cord back in, the connection becomes restablished and messages begin to be passed through once more. On the radio network, the connection is never reestablished and once it silently dies, the messages never resume. Is there some other unknown java implentation or setting for a socket that I can use, also, why am I seeing this behavior in the first place? And yes, before anyone says anything, I know TCP is not the preffered choice over an unreliable network, but in this case I wanted to ensure no packet loss.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >