From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Evgeniy Polyakov Subject: Re: data received but not detected Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:28:58 +0400 Message-ID: <20080618062857.GA3598@2ka.mipt.ru> References: <1213740538.5771.192.camel@localhost.localdomain> <48583B37.5070708@candelatech.com> <1213743506.5771.220.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Ben Greear , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Travis Stratman Return-path: Received: from relay.2ka.mipt.ru ([194.85.82.65]:51059 "EHLO 2ka.mipt.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752380AbYFRG3A (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 02:29:00 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1213743506.5771.220.camel@localhost.localdomain> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi. On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 05:58:26PM -0500, Travis Stratman (tstratman@emacinc.com) wrote: > I understand that there is no guarantee of anything with UDP, but it > seems to me that if there is a packet in the buffer (it shows up after > another packet comes in behind it) the system should know about it, > right? Did you run wireshark on receiver or sender? Check MIB stats if packet was dropped because of low mem or incorrect checksumm or some other problematic fields in UDP header. Sending part can see it perfectly correct, which will not be the issue on the receiver. If packet was delivered to receiving host, udp input path is rather simple so there are no places which can race with something and thus lost the packet. -- Evgeniy Polyakov