Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: SO_SNDBUF size is small on win32?

From: "Mark Woodward" <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>
To: "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>
Cc: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Yoshiyuki Asaba" <y-asaba(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net, kleptog(at)svana(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SO_SNDBUF size is small on win32?
Date: 2006-06-27 19:02:13
Message-ID: 12608.216.145.49.15.1151434933.squirrel@mail.mohawksoft.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
> We have definitly seen weird timing issues sometimes when both client
> and server were on Windows, but have been unable to pin it exactly on
> what. From Yoshiykis other mail it looks like this could possibly be it,
> since he did experience a speedup in the range we've been looking for in
> those cases.
>
>
>> What I would think might help is a patch on the libpq side (because it
>> *does* use a nonblocking socket) to avoid sending more than
>> 8K per WSASend call.  The effect would just be to break a
>> long send into a series of shorter sends, which wouldn't
>> really do anything useful on a well-designed TCP stack, but
>> then this is Windows we're talking about...
>
> It could definitly be a good idea to have a patch there *as well*, but I
> think they'd both be affected.

As I said earlier, I would boost the socket buffer to something larger
than merely 2x the packet size. I'd try for 32K (32768), that way we have
some space for additional buffers before we hit the problem. It is
presumed that we should have enough data in the socket buffer to at least
try to match the expected amount of data that would be sent while waiting
for the defered ACK.

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2006-06-27 19:07:05
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Overhead for stats_command_string et al, take
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-06-27 18:51:12
Subject: Re: posix_fadvise versus old kernels

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2006-06-27 19:07:05
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Overhead for stats_command_string et al, take
Previous:From: Mark WoodwardDate: 2006-06-27 18:49:58
Subject: Re: SO_SNDBUF size is small on win32?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group