[30622] in Kerberos
Re: krb5_sendauth vs NAGLE vs DelayedAck
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nicolas Williams)
Wed Jan 14 17:25:19 2009
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:07:34 -0600
From: Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com>
To: Ken Raeburn <raeburn@mit.edu>
Message-ID: <20090114220734.GT884@Sun.COM>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5A74721A-E127-45FE-BE81-100F1127250C@mit.edu>
Cc: John Hascall <john@iastate.edu>, kerberos@mit.edu
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: kerberos-bounces@mit.edu
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 04:52:34PM -0500, Ken Raeburn wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2009, at 15:22, John Hascall wrote:
> > My solution was just to do:
> > int on = 1;
> > setsockopt(fd, IPPROTO_TCP, TCP_NODELAY, &on, sizeof(on));
> > before calling krb5_sendauth() but a "better" approach might
> > be for krb5_write_message to end up calling writev so it
> > does one write instead of two, I think.
>
> Yes, I think that's probably best -- maybe via a helper function to
> run a loop and manage the bookkeeping in case of short writes.
Or setsockopt() TCP_CORK around krb5_sendauth().
________________________________________________
Kerberos mailing list Kerberos@mit.edu
https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/kerberos
