- 21. Re: Opening more than 65000 sockets (score: 1)
- Author: Yan-Fa Li <yanfali@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 16:31:09 -0800 (PST)
- If this is true then it looks like I'll have to get more hosts. However logically speaking I would have thought each LAN interface would have it's own TCP port space. Thanks for the advice. _________
- /archives/netdev/2002-03/msg00273.html (9,056 bytes)
- 22. Re: Opening more than 65000 sockets (score: 1)
- Author: Yan-Fa Li <yanfali@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 18:07:54 -0800 (PST)
- Hi, yes I just tried 2.5, it's not a memory problem. Fails at the connect() consistently at the same place. It appears that TCP source ports are unique across the whole system not per interface. I gu
- /archives/netdev/2002-03/msg00274.html (9,222 bytes)
- 23. Re: Opening more than 65000 sockets (score: 1)
- Author: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 10:31:26 -0700
- Port space is unique for a protocol (i.e.: TCP or UDP) across a host, independent of interfaces. That really looks like a bug or mis-feature to me. Why would we want this limitation? What would be t
- /archives/netdev/2002-03/msg00275.html (10,749 bytes)
- 24. Re: Opening more than 65000 sockets (score: 1)
- Author: Sridhar Samudrala <sri@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 11:08:18 -0800 (PST)
- you can use the socket option SO_REUSEADDR to bind the same port to multiple sockets, as long as each bind specifies a different local IP address. In this way the port space becomes unique for each l
- /archives/netdev/2002-03/msg00276.html (9,469 bytes)
- 25. Re: Opening more than 65000 sockets (score: 1)
- Author: Yan-Fa Li <yanfali@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 11:46:08 -0800 (PST)
- Thanks for the tip. I tried it out and it doesn't appear to work. It actually fails with a different return code EINVAL (22). Which isn't even a listed return code on the connect() man page :( Anybod
- /archives/netdev/2002-03/msg00277.html (14,156 bytes)
- 26. Re: Opening more than 65000 sockets (score: 1)
- Author: Sridhar Samudrala <sri@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 13:23:50 -0800 (PST)
- looks like you are not doing a bind explicitly and allowing the connect() call to do the auto bind. If you want to create 2 sockets with 2 different ip addresses, but the same port, you should do exp
- /archives/netdev/2002-03/msg00278.html (12,214 bytes)
- 27. Re: Opening more than 65000 sockets (score: 1)
- Author: "Nivedita Singhvi" <nivedita@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 12:27:50 -0800
- Are you doing a bind() to the unique local address you wanted? Are you doing the setsockopt() prior to that? bind() returns an EINVAL when the port is being used, if you havent actually done a REUSEA
- /archives/netdev/2002-03/msg00279.html (9,220 bytes)
- 28. Re: Opening more than 65000 sockets (score: 1)
- Author: Yan-Fa Li <yanfali@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 13:28:27 -0800 (PST)
- Thanks again. Ok I tried your suggestion but that didn't work either. Here's the offending code fragment, pardon the fugly coding: addr.sin_family = AF_INET; addr.sin_port = 0; he=gethostbyname(local
- /archives/netdev/2002-03/msg00280.html (11,860 bytes)
- 29. Re: Opening more than 65000 sockets (score: 1)
- Author: "Nivedita Singhvi" <nivedita@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 13:59:02 -0800
- Er, thats not exactly how it works. The problem is youre not specifying a port to bind to, which means the kernel is going to look for a free port. (in your case, there isnt any, and bind() returns a
- /archives/netdev/2002-03/msg00281.html (12,425 bytes)
- 30. Re: Opening more than 65000 sockets (score: 1)
- Author: Yan-Fa Li <yanfali@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 15:26:56 -0800 (PST)
- Thank you for the insight! I re-coded it with more error checking, my bad, and caught that I was using setsockopt() incorrectly, wrong level, and then made the program specify ports to bind to and no
- /archives/netdev/2002-03/msg00282.html (10,110 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu