> I tried to E-mail you but could not resolve your address.
I'm sorry I forgot to note to remove the '.jblock' -> jam Blocker
Quote:> The idea of placing a message length count at the head of a network
> message is a common and perfectly good technique. Furthermore, if you
> are constructing messages and responses in this way and
> transmitting/receiving using a single send/recv call, then disabling
> Nagle will give optimum network performance.
I've been playing around a bit in the meantime. Turning of "Nagle" realy
hve some effect on the UNIX boxes. On the other hand it does not change
to much between the Windows machines.
Quote:> So, your structure seems OK. I have just one thought, which may seem
> obvious but having not seen your code, I'll ask anyway... "Is the header
> (message length) being sent in network byte order?" If it isn't, you may
> be trying to read too many characters during recv() and perhaps
> (inadvertently) relying on a timeout which would cause a measurable
The byte order is correct. I found however a case when an answer is
built with more then one send() I changed it and it really speeded
things up. There is still a fact left I hardly can understand:
Windows PC Client (200 Mhz W95) to NT-Server (133 Mhz NT 4.0) -> best
Windows PC Client (200 Mhz W95) to SUN Ultrasparc Server about 25%
Excactly the same operations executed on the Servers themselves:
Windows NT Server (133 Mhz NT 4.0) now about 50% slower than the SUN
Can it really be, that a simple (133 Mhz NT 4.0) Server outperforms a
SUN regarding Socket I/O or do you think there is still something in my
code and I should further investigate it?
Thank's verry much so far for your previous answers