this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2023
12 points (92.9% liked)
Programming
17385 readers
558 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So the page says:
But Stevens says:
And, referring to the default
close
behavior:Also:
I'm having trouble reconciling this with the article's position that data will be discarded by the sender OS with a plain non-
SO_LINGER
close()
.I can see how the sender might be blissfully unaware that the receiver program might have crashed after the data had been sent and the connection had been closed, but before the data had arrived at the receiver program. And that's where some kind of application ACKing mechanism might be in order.
I can also see that the receiver OS might happily collect the data and shutdown the socket correctly and then the sender app thinks everything is fine, but the receiver app has crashed and will never see the data.
But neither of those conditions result in the receiver app in the example showing less than 1,000,000 bytes received unless there's an error.
What am I missing?
I confess the subject gets me confused, but my guesses are that you either are using newer information (that article is pretty old), or that you're using information that doesn't apply to all OSs.
I certainly had this problem happening before, the software was multi-platform, but I think it was observed on windows