• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: The possible reasons for SOCK_DGRAM packet loss in PF_LOCAL domain
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: The possible reasons for SOCK_DGRAM packet loss in PF_LOCAL domain


  • Subject: Re: The possible reasons for SOCK_DGRAM packet loss in PF_LOCAL domain
  • From: Paul M <email@hidden>
  • Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 15:29:55 +1300

Hi Nick,

Not directly answering your qusetion, but ...

Personally, I havn't found this to be a problem. If you need reliability, then build it in to your app - when a datagram is sent, the receiver sends back an acknowlegement. If nesessary, include checksums to ensure the message is recieved intact - if not then resend.
I've been using such techniques fairly extensively of late, and packet drop has never been a problem.


I think people make a much bigger deal of the fact that UDP communication is unreliable than is warranted. You just need to be aware of the issues and code appropriately.


paulm



On 7/01/2011, at 2:04 PM, eveningnick eveningnick wrote:

Hello
I am wondering what could possibly cause the loss of the datagram in
User Domain Sockets communication.

i am aware that SOCK_DGRAM  is a connectionless and therefore
unreliable way of communication (in PF_INET).
But what could be the reason for packets to be lost in LOCAL domain?
There are no routers, and no "dead" routes. There is no
electromagnetic interference.

Does the system drop them when its out of resources (when there's no
more memory for new mbufs)? I can't see any other possible scenario.
I haven't found any information about its unreliability in this
domain, except one person's statement about Mac OS X's behaviour. Thus
i am unsure if i could use them (or if not, why?).
I only noticed that sendto blocks unless recvfrom receives data.
Recvfrom blocks, until sendto sends data. They never returned errors.

Thanks for the answer!
 _______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Macnetworkprog mailing list      (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden


_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Macnetworkprog mailing list (email@hidden) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: This email sent to email@hidden
  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: The possible reasons for SOCK_DGRAM packet loss in PF_LOCAL domain
      • From: eveningnick eveningnick <email@hidden>
    • Re: The possible reasons for SOCK_DGRAM packet loss in PF_LOCAL domain
      • From: eveningnick eveningnick <email@hidden>
References: 
 >The possible reasons for SOCK_DGRAM packet loss in PF_LOCAL domain (From: eveningnick eveningnick <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: The possible reasons for SOCK_DGRAM packet loss in PF_LOCAL domain
  • Next by Date: Re: The possible reasons for SOCK_DGRAM packet loss in PF_LOCAL domain
  • Previous by thread: The possible reasons for SOCK_DGRAM packet loss in PF_LOCAL domain
  • Next by thread: Re: The possible reasons for SOCK_DGRAM packet loss in PF_LOCAL domain
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread