Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #80889
| From | Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Subject | Re: OTish: using short-term TCP connections to send to multiple slaves |
| Date | 2014-11-16 12:21 -0500 |
| Organization | PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC |
| Message-ID | <roy-551122.12205316112014@news.panix.com> (permalink) |
| References | <SMCdnZ700MHHD_XJnZ2dnUVZ8iSdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <87oas7ntvv.fsf@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> <mailman.15887.1416150791.18130.python-list@python.org> |
In article <mailman.15887.1416150791.18130.python-list@python.org>, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote: > UDP for anything more than your network's MTU is inefficient Why do you say it's inefficient? Sure, the UDP datagram will get fragmented and re-assembled at the other end, but it's not like TCP would do any better. One way or another, your data is going to be transmitted in packet that fit into the MTU. > plus you'd need to roll your own acknowledgement system so you know > when the client got the data, at which point you're basically > recreating TCP. That I certainly agree with. UDP should be used for fire-and-forget, where its not critical that every bit of data gets through. A classic example is high-volume logging. Once you start thinking about any kind of acknowledgements, you should just switch to TCP. The alternative is that you will slowly end up reinventing TCP (and doing a bad job of it). > NAT is the most common cause of breakage, but any router does have the > power to monitor and drop connections on any basis it likes. (I can't > imagine any reason a non-NAT router would want to prevent connections > from going idle, but it could be done.) It's common in corporate networks for routers to forcibly close idle connections (i.e. inject RST packets). Often, the IT security guys think idle connections represent some kind of threat (and good luck trying to argue with them).
Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
OTish: using short-term TCP connections to send to multiple slaves jkn <jkn_gg@nicorp.f9.co.uk> - 2014-11-16 12:02 +0000
Re: OTish: using short-term TCP connections to send to multiple slaves Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-11-16 23:36 +1100
Re: OTish: using short-term TCP connections to send to multiple slaves Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-11-16 14:44 +0200
Re: OTish: using short-term TCP connections to send to multiple slaves Alain Ketterlin <alain@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> - 2014-11-16 14:43 +0100
Re: OTish: using short-term TCP connections to send to multiple slaves Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-11-17 02:13 +1100
Re: OTish: using short-term TCP connections to send to multiple slaves Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2014-11-16 16:53 +0000
Re: OTish: using short-term TCP connections to send to multiple slaves Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2014-11-16 12:21 -0500
Re: OTish: using short-term TCP connections to send to multiple slaves Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2014-11-16 17:35 +0000
Re: OTish: using short-term TCP connections to send to multiple slaves Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-11-17 08:56 +1100
Re: OTish: using short-term TCP connections to send to multiple slaves alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2014-11-17 10:46 +0000
Re: OTish: using short-term TCP connections to send to multiple slaves jkn <jkn_gg@nicorp.f9.co.uk> - 2014-11-16 21:45 +0000
Re: OTish: using short-term TCP connections to send to multiple slaves Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2014-11-17 16:56 +0000
Re: OTish: using short-term TCP connections to send to multiple slaves Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2014-11-16 16:42 +0000
Re: OTish: using short-term TCP connections to send to multiple slaves Peter Otten <__peter__@web.de> - 2014-11-17 09:16 +0100
csiph-web