Does the setting of the size of the socket buffer really affect the
speed at which a lost peer is noticed? I could see where it would
affect how long it would be before your application filled the socket
buffer, but that isn't really the same thing right?

Are you interpreting an EAGAIN or EWOULDBLOCK (which I believe you
would get when the socket buffer filled) as meaning the remote was
toast?

Seems to me that at the time the remote system dissapears of the face
of the net, there starts something of a race - a race between the TCP
stack's retransmission limits for the first segment sent after the
remote goes poof, and how long it is before your application fills the
local send socket buffer.

rick jones
--
a wide gulf separates "what if" from "if only"
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)
feel free to post, OR email to raj in cup.hp.com but NOT BOTH...