On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 8:10 PM, Gregory P. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> The 64K hunch is wrong. The system limit can be found using
> getsockopt(...SO_RCVBUF...). It can easily be (and often is) set to many
> megabytes either at a system default level or on a per socket level by the
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Curt Hagenlocher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > But why was imaplib apparently specifying 10MB? Did it know there was
> > that much data? Or did it just not want to bother looping
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> But why was imaplib apparently specifying 10MB? Did it know there was
> that much data? Or did it just not want to bother looping over all the
> data in smaller buffer increments (e.g. 64K, which is probably the max
>
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 1:19 AM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> But why was imaplib apparently specifying 10MB? Did it know there was
> that much data? Or did it just not want to bother looping over all the
> data in smaller buffer increments (e.g. 64K, which is probably the max
>
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Ralf Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:19 AM, Curt Hagenlocher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Ralf Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry to reply on the mailing list. But this
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:19 AM, Curt Hagenlocher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Ralf Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry to reply on the mailing list. But this change is wrong.
> > e.g. if you're using a buffer size of 16 bytes and try to read 256
> by
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Ralf Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Sorry to reply on the mailing list. But this change is wrong.
> e.g. if you're using a buffer size of 16 bytes and try to read 256 bytes, it
> should call recv with a value of 256 and not call recv 16 times with a value
>
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 11:18 PM, Ralf Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 8:22 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Eek! Please use the bug tracker.
> >
>
> I 've made some comments on: http://bugs.python.org/issue1092502 (which is
> the original issu
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 8:10 PM, Curt Hagenlocher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Ralf Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I've tracked it down to this change:
> > http://hgpy.de/py/release25-maint/rev/e9446c6ab3cd
> > this is svn revision 61009.
> > [...]
> >
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 8:22 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eek! Please use the bug tracker.
>
I 've made some comments on: http://bugs.python.org/issue1092502 (which is
the original issue). However I cannot reopen this issue.
Regards,
- Ralf
__
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 12:17 PM, A.M. Kuchling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 11:10:12AM -0700, Curt Hagenlocher wrote:
> > while True:
> > left = size - buf_len
> > ! recv_size = max(self._rbufsize, left)
> >
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 11:10:12AM -0700, Curt Hagenlocher wrote:
> while True:
> left = size - buf_len
> ! recv_size = max(self._rbufsize, left)
> data = self._sock.recv(recv_size)
What version is this patch against? (The last 2.5
There's some really convoluted code in socket._fileobject.__init__()
here. When initializing a _fileobject, if the 'bufsize' parameter is
explicitly given as zero, that's turned into an _rbufsize of 1, which,
combined with the 'min' change, will produce the read-one-byte
behavior. The code for se
Eek! Please use the bug tracker.
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Curt Hagenlocher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Ralf Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I've tracked it down to this change:
> > http://hgpy.de/py/release25-maint/rev/e9446c6ab3cd
> > this
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Ralf Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I've tracked it down to this change:
> http://hgpy.de/py/release25-maint/rev/e9446c6ab3cd
> this is svn revision 61009.
> [...]
> self._rbufsize if 1, and so the code reads one byte at a time
The change is correct, but ex
Ralf,
Terry is right. Please file a bug. I do think there may be a problem
with that change but I don't have the time to review it in depth.
Hopefully others will. I do recall that sockets reading one byte at a
time has been a problem before -- I recall a bug about this in the
1.5.2 era for Window
"Ralf Schmitt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Hi all,
|
| I'm using mercurial with the release25-maint branch. I noticed that
checking
| out a local repository now takes more than
| 5 minutes (it should be around 30s).
|
| I've tracked it down to this change:
| htt
Hi all,
I'm using mercurial with the release25-maint branch. I noticed that checking
out a local repository now takes more than
5 minutes (it should be around 30s).
I've tracked it down to this change:
http://hgpy.de/py/release25-maint/rev/e9446c6ab3cd
this is svn revision 61009. Here is the diff
18 matches
Mail list logo
