From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: What to expect after 0.99.8 Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 07:51:29 -0700 Message-ID: <434296F1.5030006@zytor.com> References: <7v7jcvxxrl.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7vmzlqnwmw.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7v1x32l0gz.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20051004071210.GA18716@localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Oct 04 16:53:59 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EMo9Y-0003lg-3K for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2005 16:52:24 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932509AbVJDOwV (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Oct 2005 10:52:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932510AbVJDOwV (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Oct 2005 10:52:21 -0400 Received: from paleosilicon.orionmulti.com ([209.128.68.66]:16535 "EHLO paleosilicon.orionmulti.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932509AbVJDOwU (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Oct 2005 10:52:20 -0400 X-Envelope-From: hpa@zytor.com Received: from [172.27.0.18] (c-67-180-239-42.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.180.239.42]) (authenticated bits=0) by paleosilicon.orionmulti.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j94EpWJv027194 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 4 Oct 2005 07:51:33 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.1.fc4 (X11/20050929) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Matthias Urlichs In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=ham version=2.63 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on paleosilicon.orionmulti.com X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.87, clamav-milter version 0.87 on paleosilicon.orionmulti.com X-Virus-Status: Clean Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Matthias Urlichs wrote: > Hi, Daniel Barkalow wrote: > >>I'd guess that UNIX sockets have a >>similar capacity (although I'm not going to look it up tonight). > > You can set TCP options to change the buffer sizes. > > I would however assume that *nobody* sets both the send and receive > buffers such that their cumulative size is <4k, so 99 object IDs > at 41 bytes definitely should be OK. > For TCP, I think we should simply get our own (or set) packet buffer size and conform to it. Problem solved... -hpa