2026/03/29

Newest at the top

2026-03-29 23:01:39 +0200Guest96(~Guest62@p200300ca8f23fa0023c431aeeea1b74f.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) (Quit: Client closed)
2026-03-29 22:59:29 +0200 <monochrom> In the brick-and-mortor retail world, there are only two reasons to do that (long customer queue). One is to create hype ("oh look at how many people are dying to buy our product!"). The other is in supermarkets putting pressure on cashier workers.
2026-03-29 22:57:51 +0200merijn(~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2026-03-29 22:57:20 +0200 <monochrom> listen(a number in the order of thousands) is simply mean.
2026-03-29 22:53:22 +0200merijn(~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn
2026-03-29 22:42:57 +0200merijn(~merijn@62.45.136.136) (Ping timeout: 269 seconds)
2026-03-29 22:37:58 +0200merijn(~merijn@62.45.136.136) merijn
2026-03-29 22:35:19 +0200pavonia(~user@user/siracusa) siracusa
2026-03-29 22:34:12 +0200koala_man(~vidar@157.146.251.23.bc.googleusercontent.com) koala_man
2026-03-29 22:33:27 +0200koala_man(~vidar@157.146.251.23.bc.googleusercontent.com) (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2026-03-29 22:33:06 +0200srazkvt(~sarah@user/srazkvt) (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
2026-03-29 22:30:55 +0200machinedgod(~machinedg@d172-219-48-230.abhsia.telus.net) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
2026-03-29 22:30:29 +0200 <TMA> that might be a problem
2026-03-29 22:29:04 +0200 <tomsmeding> through this function https://hackage-content.haskell.org/package/streaming-commons-0.2.3.1/docs/src/Data.Streaming.Netw…
2026-03-29 22:28:58 +0200 <tomsmeding> TMA: following the call chain, warp seems to pass 2048 there
2026-03-29 22:28:11 +0200arandombit(~arandombi@user/arandombit) (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
2026-03-29 22:27:19 +0200merijn(~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
2026-03-29 22:26:48 +0200emmanuelux(~em@user/emmanuelux) emmanuelux
2026-03-29 22:25:08 +0200 <TMA> [exa]: there is a parameter to listen(2) that limits how many unaccepted connections are waiting. setting it to 5 or 3 is fine for the normal case of acepting often
2026-03-29 22:23:42 +0200emmanuelux(~em@user/emmanuelux) (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2026-03-29 22:22:36 +0200merijn(~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn
2026-03-29 22:21:50 +0200takuan(~takuan@d8D86B9E9.access.telenet.be) (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
2026-03-29 22:19:28 +0200jreicher(~joelr@user/jreicher) jreicher
2026-03-29 22:17:47 +0200marinelli(~weechat@gateway/tor-sasl/marinelli) marinelli
2026-03-29 22:17:27 +0200marinelli(~weechat@gateway/tor-sasl/marinelli) (Remote host closed the connection)
2026-03-29 22:17:17 +0200jmcantrell_(~weechat@user/jmcantrell) jmcantrell
2026-03-29 22:13:11 +0200 <[exa]> nah, you still need a state machine there, doesn't help.
2026-03-29 22:11:51 +0200merijn(~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
2026-03-29 22:07:15 +0200merijn(~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn
2026-03-29 22:05:42 +0200 <tomsmeding> I don't know how it works but a friend does and he's happy for reasons complementary to what you seem to not like in tcp
2026-03-29 22:05:22 +0200 <tomsmeding> then I bet you're happier with QUIC
2026-03-29 22:04:40 +0200 <[exa]> :D
2026-03-29 22:04:38 +0200 <[exa]> in other news I'm not a great fan of tcp
2026-03-29 22:04:19 +0200 <tomsmeding> yes
2026-03-29 22:04:14 +0200 <[exa]> "not accepted" means "queued forever in the OS" which might be worse
2026-03-29 22:04:02 +0200 <tomsmeding> hm
2026-03-29 22:03:55 +0200 <tomsmeding> with the downside being that connections that go over the limit are accepted and then dropped instead of not accepted
2026-03-29 22:03:37 +0200 <[exa]> and failing early is actually the recommended behavior in congestion, so I think it's okay-ish
2026-03-29 22:03:35 +0200 <tomsmeding> oh right and because accept() is called in a sequential loop, this way you can limit the number of open sockets
2026-03-29 22:02:58 +0200 <tomsmeding> heh
2026-03-29 22:02:48 +0200 <[exa]> tomsmeding: well if you don't fork, the socket is killed and you have an acceptable state again (oh so punny)
2026-03-29 22:02:03 +0200mistivia(~mistivia@user/mistivia) (Remote host closed the connection)
2026-03-29 22:01:37 +0200 <tomsmeding> then again, there's supposedly some EMFILE handling around the accept(2) call, but not sure if that actually does anything
2026-03-29 22:01:13 +0200 <tomsmeding> [exa]: I looked at the warp source code and it seemed like the accept already happens before the fork, so putting a semaphore in settingsFork doesn't seem like it really blocks accept
2026-03-29 22:01:09 +0200marinelli(~weechat@gateway/tor-sasl/marinelli) marinelli
2026-03-29 22:00:48 +0200notzmv(~umar@user/notzmv) (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2026-03-29 22:00:42 +0200marinelli(~weechat@gateway/tor-sasl/marinelli) (Remote host closed the connection)
2026-03-29 22:00:09 +0200 <[exa]> tomsmeding: tested the thing with the semaphore in the handler before fork, it apparently worked, so now it's stashed until I actually need it
2026-03-29 21:56:43 +0200merijn(~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
2026-03-29 21:55:38 +0200Lord_of_Life_Lord_of_Life