lwip-users archive search

Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ nagle: 244 ]

Total 244 documents matching your query.

201. Re: [lwip-users] question about netconn_write (score: 2)
Author: HIDDEN
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 13:11:24 +0000
Yes, but if it gets lost, TCP should retransmit it. If you're using UDP, and expecting all the data to get through, then that's a problem. None of the lwIP APIs have a "send" function that waits unti
/archive/html/lwip-users/2008-12/msg00080.html (6,176 bytes)

202. RE: [lwip-users] Rapid tcp sending leads to a very long chain of pbufs (score: 2)
Author: HIDDEN
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:11:45 -0500
I agree with the latter. I think it's pretty straight forward to start a timer for some period (1-5S) on each character to be sent and on a timeout of that timer, or on a full buffer, call send(). B
/archive/html/lwip-users/2008-11/msg00124.html (5,984 bytes)

203. RE: [lwip-users] Rapid tcp sending leads to a very long chain of pbufs (score: 2)
Author: HIDDEN
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 09:30:12 +0100
Hey, that is the LwIP implementation of the Nagle Algorithm. There were some discussions on this list about it already. You can use TCP_NODELAY socketoption in sequential APIs. (setsockopt) Also TCP_
/archive/html/lwip-users/2008-11/msg00103.html (6,312 bytes)

204. RE: [lwip-users] TCP_NODELAY (score: 2)
Author: HIDDEN
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 09:00:00 +0100
Yes, it's also used in tcp_output_do_nagle() in tcp.h Kieran
/archive/html/lwip-users/2008-10/msg00119.html (5,319 bytes)

205. RE: [lwip-users] TCP_NODELAY (score: 2)
Author: HIDDEN
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 13:10:10 -0400
Does setting this serve any purpose in raw mode since TF_NODELAY is used only in sockets.c? Bill
/archive/html/lwip-users/2008-10/msg00114.html (4,974 bytes)

206. Re: [lwip-users] TCP_NODELAY (score: 2)
Author: HIDDEN
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 15:43:11 +0100
I'm not sure if there's a supported way of doing this with the API but the above will work for now. I think it defaults to 0, so the Nagle algorithm will be used unless you set that flag. Kieran
/archive/html/lwip-users/2008-10/msg00113.html (4,818 bytes)

207. RE: [lwip-users] LWIP Delay between Consecutive Packets (score: 2)
Author: HIDDEN
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:44:29 -0400
Are you using RAWAPI? I have data only for that mode. Chances are you need to speed up your Ethernet driver and choose a faster checksum algorithm or write or find one in assembly language. Both make
/archive/html/lwip-users/2008-09/msg00124.html (9,866 bytes)

208. [lwip-users] LWIP Delay between Consecutive Packets (score: 2)
Author: HIDDEN
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:00:07 -0400
Hi, I am trying to figure out if I can increase my TCP bandwidth. Using a PC timer I see that as I send TCP Packets that the delay is in the range of 500 us on average. There may be a couple at the s
/archive/html/lwip-users/2008-09/msg00117.html (7,581 bytes)

209. Re: [lwip-users] Potential bug in tcp retransmission handling causes deadlock (score: 2)
Author: HIDDEN
Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2008 10:58:21 +0200
I opened a bug for this ( https://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/index.php?24212 ) as I think this is a severe bug that should not be forgotten. Simon Kieran asked me to do further investigations consideri
/archive/html/lwip-users/2008-09/msg00038.html (8,767 bytes)

210. Re: [lwip-users] Potential bug in tcp retransmission handling causes deadlock (score: 2)
Author: HIDDEN
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 17:12:03 +0100
Thanks for taking the time to produce such a detailed and helpful analysis. Yes, that's a problem. We'll need to fix that somehow. And that looks to be the fundamental cause of this bug. Your solutio
/archive/html/lwip-users/2008-09/msg00037.html (7,569 bytes)

211. [lwip-users] Potential bug in tcp retransmission handling causes deadlock (score: 2)
Author: HIDDEN
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 17:56:47 +0200
Hi there Kieran asked me to do further investigations considering the topic "Deadlocked tcp_retransmit due to exceeded pcb->cwnd" (see http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lwip-users/2008-07/msg00098.ht
/archive/html/lwip-users/2008-09/msg00036.html (13,439 bytes)

212. Re: [lwip-users] TCP checksum error for big sized packets on lwip 1.3.0 (score: 2)
Author: HIDDEN
Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 19:22:40 +0200
Muhamad Ikhwan Ismail wrote: I found out the problem already. My driver was set up to transfer out one buffer per frame only (1520 bytes) since we want to spare processing power as much as we can and
/archive/html/lwip-users/2008-05/msg00032.html (6,458 bytes)

213. Re: [lwip-users] tcp_enqueue problem, using socket: (score: 2)
Author: HIDDEN
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:29:39 +0100
Jifl, I found the problem. First, just for understanding, my lwip application, receives packets FROM serial port, and forward to a socket using send function. Yes, the problem is in my driver... I ha
/archive/html/lwip-users/2008-03/msg00147.html (11,496 bytes)

214. RE: [lwip-users] tcp_enqueue problem, using socket: (score: 2)
Author: HIDDEN
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:57:54 -0400
In any case, his problem will result by the socket interface calling it. He's seeing what I was dealing with 2 weeks ago and I (respectfully) agree that this is a problem that can (and should) be av
/archive/html/lwip-users/2008-03/msg00120.html (8,370 bytes)

215. Re: [lwip-users] tcp_enqueue problem, using socket: (score: 2)
Author: HIDDEN
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:55:34 +0100
i think that i found a work around, instead of increasing TCP_SNDQUEUELEN (useless for this problem) i tried to disable nagle alg. and now it seems that problem doesn't happen i'm doing some addition
/archive/html/lwip-users/2008-03/msg00117.html (9,316 bytes)

216. Re: [lwip-users] socket option TCP_NODELAY: not implemented??? (score: 2)
Author: HIDDEN
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:05:42 +0000
It is implemented. How are you calling setsockopt? Jifl -- eCosCentric Limited http://www.eCosCentric.com/ The eCos experts ** Visit us at ESC Silicon Valley <http://www.embedded.com/esc/sv> ** ** Ap
/archive/html/lwip-users/2008-03/msg00087.html (6,177 bytes)

217. [lwip-users] socket option TCP_NODELAY: not implemented??? (score: 2)
Author: HIDDEN
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:35:05 +0100
Hi. I want to try to disable nagle alg. I saw in lwip_setsockopt_internal function that it's possible to use TCP_NODELAY option, but this option seems unimplemented in lwip_setsockopt does someone ex
/archive/html/lwip-users/2008-03/msg00086.html (5,298 bytes)

218. [lwip-users] Queued segments not being sent (score: 2)
Author: HIDDEN
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 13:30:53 -0500
With the other problems fixed, which were causing every segment to be flushed, I now see no segments except for the first one being sent: Here&#8217;s a cut of my debug serial output: Initializing Et
/archive/html/lwip-users/2008-03/msg00076.html (31,856 bytes)

219. RE : [lwip-users] netconn_write blocking (score: 2)
Author: HIDDEN
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 09:46:02 +0200
I think that increase TCP_SND_QUEUELEN is not the solution in this case, since the problem is that application have to run when one of the peer is unplugged. So, a bigger TCP_SND_QUEUELEN should just
/archive/html/lwip-users/2007-10/msg00051.html (11,167 bytes)

220. RE: [lwip-users] netconn_write blocking (score: 2)
Author: HIDDEN
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 08:21:17 +0200
You can get problems this way, of course, but nevertheless, it should work... Until a client stops responding. Oh, THAT queue! That's something different, of course! :-) There are two defines in opt
/archive/html/lwip-users/2007-10/msg00047.html (7,941 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu