[30623] in Kerberos
Re: krb5_sendauth vs NAGLE vs DelayedAck
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Hascall)
Wed Jan 14 17:39:47 2009
To: Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:07:34 -0600.
<20090114220734.GT884@Sun.COM>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:38:09 CST
Message-ID: <31453.1231972689@malison.ait.iastate.edu>
From: John Hascall <john@iastate.edu>
Cc: Ken Raeburn <raeburn@mit.edu>, kerberos@mit.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
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().
I'm not sure this is portable enough yet.
John
________________________________________________
Kerberos mailing list Kerberos@mit.edu
https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/kerberos
